Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

LONDON REGIONAL TRANSPORT BILL (By Order)

Order for consideration, as amended, read.

To be considered upon Thursday 19 November.

LONDON DOCK LANDS RAILWAY (BECKTON) BILL (By Order)

TEIGNMOUTH QUAY COMPANY BILL (By Order)

YORK CITY COUNCIL BILL [Lords] (By Order)

KEBLE COLLEGE OXFORD BILL [Lords] (By Order)

SELWYN COLLEGE CAMBRIDGE BILL [Lords] (By Order)

UNIVERSITY COLLEGE LONDON BILL [Lords] (By Order)

HAMPSHIRE (LYNDHURST BYPASS) BILL [Lords] (By Order)

BRITISH RAILWAYS (LONDON) BILL [Lords] (By Order)

Orders for Second Reading read.

To he read a Second time upon Thursday 19 November.

HIGHLAND REGION HARBOURS (MISCELLANEOUS POWERS) ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL

LERWICK HARBOUR ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL

Considered; to read the Third time upon Monday 16 November.

Oral Answers to Questions — NORTHERN IRELAND

Equal Opportunity

Mr. Tony Lloyd: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what proposals he has to legislate on the Standing Advisory Commission on Human Rights report on equality of opportunity.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Peter Viggers): As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced on 29 October,

we shall be taking the report's recommendations into account in framing detailed proposals for new legislation on fair employment.

Mr. Lloyd: Does the Minister accept that the report has received considerable approval from most sections of society in Northern Ireland? Will he guarantee that he will introduce legislation to amend the Fair Employment (Northern Ireland) Act 1976, and that because that was Westminster legislation he will introduce the new legislation before the House?

Mr. Viggers: We are firmly committed to such legislation. The standing advisory commission's report contained some 240 specific recommendations, so we must give careful thought to the matter before we legislate. We shall bring the issues before the House; we are currently considering whether we should do that by a Bill or by order.

Rev. Ian Paisley: Is the Minister aware of what occurred yesterday in Northern Ireland when workers at Short's, the University of Ulster and at Fisher Body wanted to observe a one-minute silence? The managements said that, as a result of the FEA arrangements, they could not do that because it would offend certain employees in the work place. Is he aware that when nurses from the Royal Victoria hospital complex who worked with the nurse who was slaughtered asked that the Union Jack be put at half mast they were told that it would be offensive? It was only when the board intervened that the flag was flown at half mast. Will the Secretary of State assure the people of Northern Ireland that they will have the right to observe a one-minute silence in their workplace when atrocities are carried out by the IRA?

Mr. Viggers: The points made by the hon. Gentleman do not directly follow the subject of the main question, but I assure him that the Government are committed to legislation on fair employment. We believe that our policy has the broad support of employers and employee representative bodies and is the right measure to reduce sectarian difficulties.

Mr. John David Taylor: Does the Minister see any inconsistency in the fact that a person was recently removed from employment in this building who was merely suspected of supporting Sinn Fein, when the Government's legislation is forcing employers in Northern Ireland to employ people who positively support Sinn Fein?

Mr. Viggers: The Government are committed to fair employment. The process that we have outlined in our consultative document and again in the employment guide in September is—

Mr. John David Taylor: Answer the question.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Viggers: Monitoring of sectarian background is necessary to encourage employers and employees to co-operate.

Mr. Cash: Does my hon. Friend agree that it is essential, in maintaining the confidence of the people of Northern Ireland — not only in relation to the improvements that have been made in court procedures vis-à-vis the Diplock courts but in matters relating to fair


employment — to ensure that Catholics have a fair opportunity to attain jobs on terms equal to those available to other members of the Ulster community?

Mr. Viggers: My hon. Friend expresses the general view that it is broadly unacceptable to have unemployment among those from Catholic background at two and a half times higher than that among those from Protestant backgrounds, and that the Government line is the correct one.

Mr. Hume: Does the Minister accept that the standing advisory commission statistics, the Government's own consultative statistics and, indeed, his own remarks show an unprecedented frankness in admitting the extent of the problem and a determination to deal with it? Does the hon. Gentleman agree that we need a two-pronged approach? First, we need strong fair employment legislation to outlaw discrimination and to take sanctions against employers who deliberately discriminate; and, secondly, we need investment in areas of high unemployment. Anything that obstructs that process of investment damages the creation of fair employment in Northern Ireland.

Mr. Viggers: The figures that I cited were the Government's figures, confirmed by the standing advisory commission. I support the line that the hon. Gentleman has put before the House. Clearly, if we can encourage further investment and project Northern Ireland as a good place to do business and a fair place to employ people, we shall help to promote further prosperity and jobs.

Mr. James Marshall: Does the Minister accept that that last aim could well be advanced if the Government showed firm political commitment to the measures in two ways? Does he agree that the report should be debated on the Floor of the House and, more important, will he give a commitment that the legislation will be introduced in the form of a Westminster Bill and not by order?

Mr. Viggers: We are giving careful consideration to the latter point. On the timing of the legislation, there has been a large response to the proposals in our consultative paper. Some 80 substantial written representations have been made and it is crucial that we get the legislation right.

Abortion

Mrs. Wise: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what recent consideration has been given to extending the Abortion Act 1967 to Northern Ireland.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Needham): The legalisation on abortion in Northern Ireland was last reviewed in 1985. At that time it was concluded that any change in the law would be opposed by an overwhelming majority of the population. I believe that that remains the case.

Mrs. Wise: Is the Minister aware that some readily available ante-natal tests in Britain for the detection of serious congenital abnormalities are not so readily available in Northern Ireland? Is he further aware that in Northern Ireland a significantly higher percentage of babies are born with defects? Does that not give him good cause to reconsider the matter?

Mr. Needham: I am aware of the facts mentioned by the hon. Lady and I must admit that personally I should like

to see a broader debate on this matter. However, therapeutic abortion is available in Northern Ireland and I am doing all that I can as the Minister responsible for health to make sure that people are properly counselled.

Mrs. Kellett-Bowman: Is my hon. Friend aware that many people in this country regard the 1967 Act with utter abhorrence and would greatly regret its extension to Northern Ireland or anywhere else? We should bear in mind that only about 7 per cent. of babies surviving beyond the 18th week of pregnancy are born disabled, that many deformities are only slight and that many disabled people lead worthwhile lives.

Mr. Needham: I understand my hon. Friend's views and I appreciate the depth of her feelings. However, I believe that adequate and proper counselling should be available for mothers who may find themselves having a badly handicapped child, which may be immensely disruptive and destructive for the family.

Rev. Martin Smyth: The Minister has underlined the fact that therapeutic abortion is available in Northern Ireland. Will he also acknowledge that in our professor of genetics we have a very able person who is conducting a worthwhile scheme? However, in a week in which the House and the nation have shared in mourning the destruction of 12 lives in Northern Ireland, would the Minister not say that it was deplorable to suggest that an Act that has contributed to the destruction of almost 3 million human beings with potential should be extended to Northern Ireland? We do not want it.

Mr. Needham: As I have already said, it has been the policy not only of this Government but of their predecessors not to introduce legislation of that sort, which would be opposed by a large majority of the people in Northern Ireland. That remains the position.

Security

Mr. Bellingham: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the present security situation.

Mr. William Ross: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he is satisfied with progress in the fight against terrorism.

The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Tom King): Since I last answered questions in the House on 23 July, 29 people have been killed in incidents arising from the security situation. These include a number of believed terrorists killed by their own devices. Against that serious background, the security forces have achieved some significant results. So far this year 394 people have been charged with serious offences, including 25 with murder. A total of 230 weapons and approximately 13,000 rounds of ammunition and 12,725 lb of explosives have been recovered.
In addition, the Garda Siochana has recovered 118 weapons, 10,000 rounds of ammunition and some 4,000 lb of explosives. In addition, the House will be aware of the substantial arms seizure on the Eksund, for which we are most grateful to the French authorities.
As I informed the House, I am having further urgent discussions with my security advisers in the light of the recent outrages. I shall also be having early discussion with Irish Ministers about security matters. The House will also


be aware of the universal condemnation that Sunday's outrage in Enniskillen has received. It is vital that that condemnation is backed by the fullest help and support from all sides of the community to the Royal Ulster Constabulary and the security forces in their vital fight against terrorism.

Mr. Bellingham: Does my right hon. Friend agree that after the ghastly and horrific events of the past few days there can be no doubt that those evil terrorists are the sworn enemies of all the people of Ireland, North and South? In the light of that, are we not entitled to expect, and likely to see, a renewed determination and total commitment by the Southern Irish Government to combat terrorism and impede it at every possible turn? Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is more important than ever that the two Irish Governments should work together?

Mr. King: There is no question but that recent events have made a profound impression south of the border as well as north. I note reports in The Irish Times of the formation of a new security committee headed by the Taoiseach. There is no question but that the kidnapping had a serious and proper impact on thought. Enniskillen has rightly shocked everybody throughout the island of Ireland and the arms shipments are a serious matter, which every person in the island of Ireland needs to take seriously.

Mr. William Ross: I asked the Secretary of State whether he was satisfied with the progress in the fight against terrorism and I am not clear from his answer whether he is. If he is satisfied, he must be the lone voice in the House today. If he is not satisfied with the progress in the fight against terrorism, when does he expect his level of confidence to match the requirements of the situation?

Mr. King: Of course I am not satisfied. I should make it clear to the hon. Gentleman that I do not believe that any hon. Member could be satisfied with the progress on security after the events of recent days. There is no question of that at all. We are fighting hard. The hon. Gentleman does no credit to his knowledge of the situation to pretend that it lies in my hands or in the hands of the Government to wave a wand. There is a role for the security forces and for the leaders of all the communities in Northern Ireland. We owe it to all the people who have died in the tragedy of Northern Ireland not to seek to open old wounds. I believe that there is a new spirit flowing under the leadership of many of the people who have suffered most in Enniskillen. They want to see how they can build new bridges and make a new start. I plead with hon. Members who represent the Province not to open old wounds but to try to build on the spirit of what I believe is calling to them from these people and to give a new lead.

Mr. Kilfedder: In order to further the new spirit to which the Secretary of State has referred, do all the constitutional parties in Northern Ireland now fully and unequivocally support the members of the security forces? Does the right hon. Gentleman now expect appeals to be made for the minority to join the security forces in greater numbers, so that we can present a united front irrespective or religion or politics against the men of terror?

Mr. King: As I made clear in my answer, I look to all the constitutional parties in Northern Ireland to give the fullest support to the security forces, and I should dearly like to see enhanced recruitment of members of the

minority community. The evidence in recent years of the contribution made by the security forces in upholding the law impartially, protecting Nationalists as well as Unionists in the face of intimidation and terror, entitles them to the fullest support of both communities in Northern Ireland.

Mr. Alton: Will the Secretary of State confirm that we need not only the co-operation of the Catholic part of the community, important though that is, but co-operation from Dublin as well? In that context, will the right hon. Gentleman reiterate his hope that the extradition agreement will be enacted on 1 December? Will he also tell us why the Prime Minister ruled out a joint security commission before discussions with the Irish Government had even taken place?

Mr. King: I am not sure that I picked up what the hon. Gentleman said about the joint security commission. However, I have made no secret of my concern about the extradition treaty. I have no hesitation in making it clear where I stand on that.
I believe that. strong — overwhelming, some might have said—as the arguments were before the events of the past week, there is now no doubt that we must have the very closest co-operation and joint activity between both Governments in the fight against terrorism. There is such an identity of interest, manifest to everyone in the island of Ireland, that it has become a compelling priority.

Mr. Hayes: Is my right hon. Friend not appalled that this morning the IRA placed a nail bomb outside a primary school in Belfast, which, mercifully, was defused by the security forces? Does he not agree that the "sympathy" expressed by Sinn Fein is nothing more than an obscenity?

Mr. King: As the House will know, within hours of the issue of that contemptible statement of regret, a further bomb was identified. It had been placed at a Remembrance Day parade in Tullyhommon, near Pettigo. The overwhelming casualties that would have resulted if the bomb had gone off—thankfully, the IRA failed to detonate it—would have been civilians : young members of the Boys Brigade and the Girls Brigade, their parents and other spectators. It ultimately and totally reveals the contemptible nature of the IRA campaign.

Mr. Mallon: Does the Secretary of State agree that the bomb that exploded in Enniskillen was a very political bomb? Does he agree that its aim was to damage the Anglo-Irish Agreement, and that the people who stand to suffer most from that agreement are the Provisional IRA, who fear the two communities coming together as the Secretary of State has recommended?
Does the right hon. Gentleman also agree that the only way in which the Provisional IRA and those dedicated to violence can ultimately be defeated is through the united efforts of all those living on the island, and the help of the two Governments acting together?

Mr. King: Certainly I agree. It would be difficult to conceive of an attack more villainously designed to stir up sectarian hatred than that outrage—in its conception and in the location and target of the bomb. I make no secret of the fact that I know that the IRA is determined to smash any attempt at closer co-operation between the


British and the Irish Governments. I also know that, if we are to defeat the evil of terrorism, that co-operation is vital.

Mr. Yeo: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the only positive response to outrages such as that at Enniskillen is to reaffirm our determination to make a success of the Anglo-Irish Agreement? Will he assure the House that not only is that his view, but that he will make every effort to ensure that that view is shared by the Republic?

Mr. King: Co-operation must be the right way forward and it is overwhelmingly in the interests of the majority and minority communities in Northern Ireland. The majority community has the greatest possible interest in a more effective attack on the problems of terrorism and in improvements in security. I am determined to work for that and I accept the advice of the Chief Constable that the Anglo-Irish Agreement has given him the best possible opportunity for furthering that cause.

Mr. Speaker: Mr. Jim Marshall to ask Question 5.

Mr. James Marshall: rose—

Mr. Speaker: I am sorry. I had not realised that I had not called the Opposition Front Bench spokesman. Mr. McNamara.

Mr. McNamara: You do not have to, Mr. Speaker. As I echo most of the opinions expressed by the Secretary of State, I shall not pursue the matter.

ACE Funding

Mr. James Marshall: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make available the evidence on which his decision to withdraw ACE funding from various organisations in Northern Ireland has been taken.

Mr. Fatchett: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what are the main criteria used in deciding whether or not to renew ACE funding to organisations in receipt of such funding.

Mr. Viggers: Subject to the availability of resources, priority is given to projects which provide services for disadvantaged groups, those which may promote permanent employment, and projects in areas where the level of ACE provision is lower than the local incidence of long-term unemployment would warrant. With the exception of a small number of cases where security considerations apply, I am willing to discuss the basis on which a decision to withdraw or not to renew ACE funding has been taken.

Mr. Marshall: I hope that the Minister will accept that no Labour Member wishes to see any Government money get into the hands of any terrorist organisation on either side in the Province, but is he aware of the damage that is done to community relations when ACE funding is withdrawn and no reasons are given? If so, does he agree that, in order to minimise that damage, it would be elementary justice to introduce either a right of appeal against the Government's decisions or an independent review body to look at the decisions?

Mr. Viggers: ACE is a popular scheme and its funding and numbers have increased every year since it was introduced by the Government in 1981. More than 6,000 people are now involved in those places and there is a

waiting list of 4,000. However, in a small number of cases there is a dispute about the way in which ACE funding has been withdrawn. For security reasons no details can be given, but each case is dealt with on its merits and a change in the pertinent circumstances can lead to a review of the case.

Mr. Fatchett: As my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, South (Mr. Marshall) said, I am sure that no hon. Member would wish to see money used for purposes that would damage security, but, if I may pick a comment in the Minister's reply, will he meet representatives of the Twinbrook tenants and community association, from which I understand that funds have been withdrawn? It may not be possible for him to state the reasons for that now, but will he meet representatives?

Mr. Viggers: The terms on which support for ACE groups can sometimes be withdrawn were spelt out in detail by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, then Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. in a reply in the House on 27 June 1985. For security reasons it is not advisable for us to give details of the reasons for the withdrawal of ACE funding.

Mr. Kilfedder: Will the Minister encourage voluntary organisations to make full use of the ACE scheme, particularly as many elderly and handicapped people would benefit from the services of some young people in their homes or gardens?

Mr. Viggers: We try hard to ensure that ACE funding goes to those groups that are in the best position to assist the kind of disadvantaged groups that the hon. Gentleman mentioned.

International Fund

Mr. Bowis: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many individuals and organisations have applied for funding from the international fund for Ireland; if he will list those approved with the amount granted in each case; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Stanley: The international fund for Ireland is administered by an independent board appointed by Her Majesty's Government and the Government of the Irish Republic. Details of applications for assistance and awards made are a matter for the board. A copy of the fund's press notice of 27 August detailing programme allocations totalling £47·9 million is in the Library.

Mr. Bowis: Is my right hon. Friend satisfied and certain —if not will he make himself certain—that no money from the fund reaches any paramilitary or terrorist organisation? I have in mind especially the seepage that tends to happen from industries such as the construction industry to such organisations through the evil and unacceptable method of the protection racket.

Mr. Stanley: I endorse entirely my hon. Friend's sentiments. That important consideration exercises the chairman and the board members of the fund when they consider individual applications, which are, of course, carefully scrutinised from that standpoint.

Mr. Hume: Is the Minister aware that the European Community is willing to contribute to the fund and that it is simply awaiting encouragement from one member state—the British Government? Will he please give the Community that encouragement?

Mr. Stanley: The hon. Gentleman is familiar with the background to that. This matter raises wider issues of the EEC budget. He is aware of the substantial contributions that have been made in the Province and the Republic by the EEC through infrastructure funds and in other ways.

Mr. Budgen: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Government's impertinent and raucous advice to the Americans about their domestic financial affairs is especially unfortunate because it provides some partial justification for the Americans in their arrogant and ignorant support of the Anglo-Irish Agreement through the fund?

Mr. Stanley: The Government Front Bench and, I believe, many Conservative Back Benchers and many Opposition Members welcome the fact that by August this year the United States Government had made significant contributions to the international fund. That is an important testimony to the American Administration's commitment to the process of economic and social advancement and reconciliation in North and South.

Anglo-Irish Agreement

Mr. Corbett: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland whether he will make a statement on the last meeting of the Intergovernmental Conference established by the Anglo-Irish Agreement.

Sir John Biggs-Davison: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the working of the Anglo-Irish Agreement.

Mr. Mullin: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when he last met the Foreign Minister of the Republic of Ireland.

Mr. Tom King: The last meeting of the Intergovernmental Conference took place on 21 October. A joint statement was issued after the meeting, a copy of which has been placed in the Library. As that records, the conference discussed a range of matters, including extradition, the administration of justice, cross-border security and economic co-operation and religious equality of opportunity in employment.

Mr. Corbett: While thanking the Secretary of State for that reply may I ask him to confirm that the barbaric events in Enniskillen underline the critical importance of the co-operation of the Irish Government in all areas, and that that is best achieved under the Anglo-Irish Agreement? Will he accept that many of us in the House wish to play our part in the parliamentary tier envisaged by that agreement? Will he advise us when action will be taken on that to open the door so that every hon. Member of the House can play a constructive role in that process?

Mr. King: Those who consider the position today will recognise the vital importance of closer co-operation between the United Kingdom and the Government of the Republic. There is great merit in closer understanding between hon. Members in this House and the Houses of Parliament of the Dail Eireann. However, it is for hon. Members of this House to decide the ways in which they want to achieve that.

Sir John Biggs-Davison: After two years, cannot Ministers be honest, humble and courageous enough to admit that the agreement has outraged most people in the

Province, including moderate people, without achieving its aims and that it should be reviewed, as is provided in the agreement? How can my right hon. Friend continue to treat Northern Ireland as a colonial condominium? Is riot the surest safeguard against any sectarian domination, of which the Social Democratic and Labour party speaks, to treat Northern Ireland as truly part of this Kingdom, under this one Parliament, because that is the surest guarantee of minority rights?

Mr. King: I advise my hon. Friend, whose interest in such matters I greatly respect, that the slogans that address this matter are not the most helpful way forward. However, I congratulate him on being prepared to put forward ideas, sit down and discuss them. What Northern Ireland now needs, above all after the events of recent days, is leadership from the leaders of all the parties in Northern Ireland to consider whether there is some way in which we can work to find ways in which there could be improvements. There is a later question on the Order Paper in the answer to which I make it clear that, although the Government support the concept of devolution, there may be difficulties in the speed of progress that can be made towards it. Obviously there is a case for looking at whatever alternatives can be considered as well. What I hope we can say and what I hope is the message from the people of Northern Ireland to their elected representatives, is, "Let us start talking constructively about the way forward."

Mr. Rowe: My right hon. Friend is aware that I passionately support the cause of the Anglo-Irish Agreement. However, at a time when the two nations are, quite properly, determined to establish their separateness and their sovereignty, is there still a case for extending to the citizens of Southern Ireland so many privileges that are uniquely extended to them compared to other citizens of the European Community?

Mr. King: Of all the problems and issues that we have at the moment, that is a particular area in which I would not propose to trespass. However, it is true to say that, as my hon. Friend is aware, the particular and unique privilege regarding voting has been reciprocated by the Republic of Ireland.

Mr. Maginnis: Does the Secretary of State accept that. in my constituency; the Anglo-Irish Agreement has not produced the smallest vestige of improved security? Does he recall that the murder of Corporal Thomas Hewitt occurred when a sniper from the Irish Republic killed that young soldier in Belleek? Will he also give a detailed account to the House of the circumstances surrounding the bomb at Tullyhommon, which was placed in an area where young people were assembling for a church parade? The bomb was intended to wipe out an entire generation of young people in the Tullyhommon area and the attempt to detonate it was made from a hill in the Irish Republic.

Mr. King: In respect of the first illustration that the hon. Gentleman has given of the murder of a British service man at Belleek, he will be aware that the Garda Siochana subsequently arrested one person in the Republic who has now been charged, although not initially, with murder. Obviously, co-operation in such matters is extremely important to us. In respect of the second matter, I have made extremely clear my views on the outrage that


was attempted at Tullyhommon. The hon. Gentleman's account is accurate and I entirely share his feelings on that matter.

Mr. Peter Robinson: Will the Secretary of State answer the question that is on the lips of the hundreds of people from England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland who are lobbying the House today? After two years of an agreement, the declared aims of which were to produce peace, stability and reconciliation, but which instead has increased the death toll, polarised the community and caused political and economic instability beyond that that we ever had before, when will the Secretary of State end the agony, bury the agreement and get a satisfactory alternative?

Mr. King: The hon. Member talks as though the problems of Northern Ireland started two years ago. He knows perfectly well that the troubles of Northern Ireland and the terrorist campaigns go back very much longer than that. He knows very well that the scale of murders in Northern Ireland was vastly higher some years ago than even the existing appalling level, which I find quite unacceptable. May I say to the hon. Gentleman, as I have said to the House, and as I have said to the elected politicians of Northern Ireland, that Ulster cannot just say no. Ulster must say yes to something. The hon. Gentleman has a responsibility in that matter, if I may say so—a responsibility which he and one or two others have sought to address. I hope that others will be willing to look constructively at constructive solutions.

Mr. Loyden: Does the Secretary of State agree that the continuance of the present divide in Northern Ireland will only result in hopelessness and cynicism about what is happening in mainland Britain concerning the Irish problem? Does he agree that the only way of dealing with the problem over the long period during which Ireland has been in this state has been through positive initiatives towards Ireland as a whole? The only way to soften the divide between the different parts of Ireland is to recognise it as an entity, so that we can move towards a proper unity of the Irish people and nation.

Mr. King: If I understood that question correctly, I think that my answer is no.

Rev. William McCrea: Will the Secretary of State take it from me that none of the eleven people who died in the massacre at Enniskillen wanted to be associated with the Anglo-Irish Agreement? They did not die — [Interruption.] I know that, because I know that the people of Northern Ireland have completely rejected the Anglo-Irish Agreement. It has brought nothing but death and destruction.
Will the Secretary of State also take it from me that it is a tragedy that it took 2,500 people to die in Ulster before certain hon. Members were willing to condemn the IRA?

Mr. King: It is most unfortunate that the hon. Gentleman has introduced those elements of argument into a tragedy and outrage that has united people in condemnation. I do not know of his right to speak for every single individual in this. All of us who believe in democracy know that we shall stand united against terrorism. We are all determined on that course. It is the most united message that the House can give.

Mr. McNamara: May I return to the issue of the Anglo-Irish Agreement and say that if hon. Members did not

understand the Secretary of State's difficulties before, they will now, after the last supplementary question? We believe that the Government are to be congratulated on the way in which they have been able to defy the bomber and the constitutional wrecker in maintaining the Anglo-Irish Agreement. We want it to go ahead and be extended to include not only security matters but others of economic and social importance for the benefit of all the people of Ireland. In many ways, the last declaration of the Anglo-Irish Conference was one of the most helpful and constructive that there has been for a long time.

Mr. King: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his comments. I have made it clear to the House that the agreement is a sensible basis on which to co-operate in a number of matters of benefit to the people north and south of the border in the island of Ireland.

Administration (Reform)

Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what proposals he is considering to enable the people of Northern Ireland to have a greater say in the administration of the Province.

Mr. Tom King: While I believe that some form of devolved government would best meet the needs of Northern Ireland, the crucial test for any system is whether it can command widespread acceptance. I am willing, therefore, to consider any proposals that might pass that test.

Mr. McNair-Wilson: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the overwhelming reaction to the massacre at Enniskillen is a feeling that unless the community is prepared to live under the shadow of the gunman and bomber indefinitely, it must find a way of working together? Earlier, my right hon. Friend referred to a new spirit. If he is to make something of that, is this not the moment for the Government to bring forward an initiative for some type of political forum in which the political parties in Northern Ireland could take part?

Mr. King: I have made it clear that I would welcome discussions on any matters along the lines that my hon. Friend suggests. Whether it would he best for the Government to bring them forward, or whether others should seek to propose them and at a later stage the Government might become involved, is a matter for consideration. The events of recent days and weeks make clear the responsibility on all of us to see whether we can find a way in which that spirit of reconciliation that is echoing out of Enniskillen and other parts of Northern Ireland at this time can enable us to recognise our responsibility towards the people showing that spirit.

Northern Ireland Economic Council (Report)

Mr. McGrady: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the report of the Northern Ireland Economic Council recently published and indicate what further action he intends to take to reduce the unemployment prospect facing Northern Ireland.

Mr. Viggers: I welcome the constructive assessment contained in this report. Unemployment continues to be a problem, but, as shown by the figures published this morning, it is encouraging to note that for the past five


months the underlying trend of unemployment in Northern Ireland has been consistently downwards. The improvement shown in the monthly figures announced today was the biggest drop in the seasonally adjusted year-on-year numbers for 13 years.

Mr. McGrady: I thank the Minister for that reply. Is he aware that the Northern Ireland Economic Council recently forecast that in the coming years unemployment would increase in Northern Ireland? At 18·7 per cent. it is now the highest in the United Kingdom. Does he agree that those figures disguise the hidden unemployment, because of such special schemes as ACE and YTP, a prolific security industry and emigration? Does he further agree that recent Government action will exacerbate unemployment in Northern Ireland?

Mr. Viggers: It is of course true that many people are undergoing training on Government schemes. We are proud of that, not ashamed of it. Substantial new business investments are being made and more jobs are becoming available in areas of industry where Northern Ireland is a leader. This is good news and should promote more confidence that Northern Ireland is a good place in which to do business.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRIME MINISTER

Engagements

Mr. Nelson: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 12 November 1987.

The Prime Minister (Mrs. Margaret Thatcher): This morning I presided at a meeting of the Cabinet and had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House I shall be having further meetings later today.

Mr. Nelson: Will my right hon. Friend take the opportunity today to welcome the decision by the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry and the commendably swift report by the Monopolies and Mergers Commission giving the go-ahead to the bid by British Airways for British Caledonian? Does she agree that such a merger is likely to be in the interests of both companies, their employees and customers, and that it is wholly consistent with the Government's competition policy? However, will she give an undertaking that if British Airways fails to comply with the conditions for competition the Government will not hesitate to refer British Airways back to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission?

The Prime Minister: I agree with my hon. Friend that the Monopolies and Mergers Commission worked with commendable speed and that the decision by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry has been widely welcomed. I also agree that the merger is consistent with the Government's policy on competition. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry has made it clear that he expects the Monopolies and Mergers Commission proposals to be fully implemented. Assuming that the merger goes ahead, the chairman of the Civil Aviation Authority has undertaken to report in a year to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport about its implementation on the basis proposed.

Mr. Kinnock: Are we to take it for granted that from now on the Government's policy on competition is the creation of private monopolies in gas, electricity and airlines, regardless of the interests of the consumer?

The Prime Minister: No. The right hon. Gentleman is aware that the BCal-British Airways merger was referred to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission. He is also aware that in the absence of an adverse public interest finding by the MMC there are no powers for the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry to prevent the merger. The right hon. Gentleman must await the Bill on electricity privatisation to see how that industry is to be privatised.

Mr. Kinnock: The terms of reference of the Monopolies and Mergers Commission are one thing; the Government's role as the ultimate safeguarder of the public interest is another. Will the Prime Minister answer the question? Is the future to be one of private monopolies, whereas previously she has been critical of public monopolies?

The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman is critical of the decision. [HON. MEMBERS: "Answer"]. I will answer in my own way. The right hon. Gentleman is critical of the decision taken on British Airways and British Caledonian. That is the meaning of his question. [Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. The Prime Minister must he given a chance to answer.

The Prime Minister: My right hon. Friend took the decision to refer the merger to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission. The commission decided that the acquisition would not operate against the public interest and I have just informed the right hon. Gentleman that, in the absence of an adverse public interest finding by the Monopolies and Mergers Commission, there are no powers for the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry to prevent the merger. Our competition policy remains. There are other powers under competition legislation if concerns arise in the future.

Mr. Bowis: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 12 November.

The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Bowis: Will my right hon. Friend spend a little time today looking at the latest unemployment figures, which show that for the 16th month in succession unemployment has fallen—to below 10 per cent.? Does she agree that, together with the steady growth in inflation, the steadiness in inflation and the value of the pound, the people of this country and abroad can rejoice in the strength of the British economy, which strength has come about through her Government?

The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is quite right. The unemployment figures today are encouraging. Unemployment has now fallen by a record 445,000 over the past year, faster than in any other major industrialised country. Six years of economic growth show the wisdom of the Government's economic policies. Sound finance and British enterprise have produced the highest standard of living the country has ever known.

Mr. Fatchett: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 12 November.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Fatchett: In a week in which the House has experienced the sordid use of bought political influence, it has been announced that private companies, without any reference to their shareholders, donated more than £2·5 million to the Conservative party in 1986. Is it not time that the Government introduced legislation to provide that shareholders are balloted before companies make political contributions, or is this simply another case of where the Government's stated political principles come second to their political and private greed?

The Prime Minister: I totally reject the hon. Gentleman's charge. The reason why Conservative Members supported the Felixstowe Bill is that Felixstowe is an excellent port. The Bill will help it to develop and it will be good for jobs, enterprise, exports, prosperity and the local people generally. No wonder the Labour party opposed it.

Mr. Aitken: While warmly welcoming yesterday's surprise announcement that the Government now intend to reform the Official Secrets Act, may I ask my right hon. Friend to clarify whether her replacement legislation is likely to be a measure in the direction of greater liberalisation, or greater restriction?

The Prime Minister: As my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General said earlier this week, work has been in hand for some time to find effective enforceable and reasonable provisions to replace section 2 of the Official Secrets Act 1911. If, in the light of that work, we decide to bring forward further proposals for the reform, we shall announce our intentions in due course. I hope that my hon. Friend is conscious of the criticisms that have been levelled at the 1979 Bill. A great deal of work was done on that Bill. The Franks report was produced in the lifetime of the last Labour Government and that Government produced a White Paper. We brought forward the proposals then fashioned in the White Paper, but they did not find favour in the House. Therefore, we must be careful with the measures that we bring forward. They will be more restrictive than the present section 2. My hon. Friend did not need to ask a question to secure that reply.

Mr. Steel: Presumably the Prime Minister did not mean to say that the legislation would be more restrictive.

An Hon. Member: That is what the right hon. Lady said.

Mr. Steel: I know that is what the Prime Minister said, but presumably it is not what she meant. Presumably it will not be more restrictive than section 2 of the Official Secrets Act. Will the right hon. Lady support the private Member's Bill being introduced by her hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) to repeal section 2?

The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman is quite right. Should we decide to bring forward a new section 2, it will be less restrictive than the present section 2, for obvious reasons. Indeed, so was the clause brought forward in 1979, which was rejected, as the right hon. Gentleman knows. A great deal of work had been done by both sides of the House then and it was thought to be a virtually agreed measure, but it did not turn out to be so.

Mr. Barry Field: In view of the imputations against my right hon. Friend over her support of yesterday's business,

does she agree that it is remarkable that the Royal Arsenal Co-operative Society spent £10,000 on the London Labour party—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I will explain afterwards why that is not in order.

Mr. Hoyle: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 12 November.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Hoyle: In the course of her busy day, will the Prime Minister take time to read early-day motion 96 about speech therapists, which has been signed by 222 hon. Members belonging to all parties? Will she note that the motion draws attention to the grave shortage of speech therapists and their low salaries compared with those of other graduate professions? Will she, as a woman and as Prime Minister, support speech therapists, who are predominantly a female profession, in their efforts to obtain equal pay for work of equal value compared to that of other graduate professions in the National Health Service, which are mainly male?

The Prime Minister: Yes, of course, I shall read the motion. On pay, my recollection, subject to checking, is that speech therapists stayed outside the professions supplementary to medicine being referred to the review body on pay.

Mr. Nicholas Bennett: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 12 November.

The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Bennett: Will my right hon. Friend find time today to send a message to the Customs service and to the Dutch authorities to congratulate them on their success in discovering the £51 million haul of drugs this week?

The Prime Minister: Yes, gladly, both to the Customs officers, who are delighted with the haul, and to the Dutch authorities, on their efficiency. The drug seizure was double the total amount seized in Britain in the whole of last year. That is very good news and we gladly give congratulations to all concerned in the seizure.

Mr. Eastham: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 12 November.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Eastham: Does the right hon. Lady recall the statement that she made to the House last week in response to a question by my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Ms. Ruddock), when she claimed that funding for the National Health Service had been transferred, thus improving the service in the north? May I draw to her attention the fact that in Manchester royal eye hospital old people aged 78 and 80 are waiting 60 weeks for their first appointments and up to two years for cataract operations? How does the Prime Minister square that with the statement she made last week?

The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman is aware that under the reallocation of health resources more has been allocated outside London to help other hospitals. I have


visited many new hospitals which have come about as a result. He is also aware that far more cataract operations are undertaken now than there were eight years ago. It is hoped that under the waiting list provision that improvement will continue.

Mr. Grylls: Does my right hon. Friend agree that millions of people throughout the country will have welcomed the fact that the Licensing Bill received its Second Reading last week? No doubt quite a few hon. Members in the House will have welcomed that as well. Does she agree that that is one more successful step down the path of deregulation, and that removing the obstacles and burdens from both large and small firms is the best way to get them to grow and create the new jobs that we all need?

The Prime Minister: I welcome the passage of the Licensing Bill to its Second Reading and I hope that it will complete all its stages without any hitches.

Mr. Mallon: Noting the resolve of the Prime Minister and the Taoiseach of the Irish Republic to bring to justice those who planted the bomb in Enniskillen, may I ask whether the Prime Minister agrees that no one should use the terrible suffering of those people of Enniskillen for political reasons? Does she further agree that the job of politics in the north of Ireland now is to translate the humanity, compassion and forgiveness of the relatives of people who have suffered in Enniskillen into politics in the north of Ireland for the betterment of all the people there?

The Prime Minister: I believe that the brave and noble reaction of the people of Enniskillen has had a profound effect on all who witnessed it. The people of Enniskillen have no time for hate, only for dignity and help. Now is the time for co-operation between the constitutional parties in Northern Ireland, that is, those who reject violence. They must come together to make a new move forward.

Business of the House

Mr. Roy Hattersley: May I ask the Leader of the House to state the business for next week?

The Lord Privy Seal and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Wakeham): Yes, Sir. The business for next week will be as follows:
MONDAY 16 NOVEMBER — Proceedings on the Consolidated Fund Bill.
Second Reading of the Immigration Bill.
Motions on Food Protection (Emergency Prohibitions) Orders. Details will be given in the Official Report.
TUESDAY 17 NOVEMBER—Opposition Day (3rd Allotted Day). There will be a debate on an Opposition motion entitled "The Failure of the Government to Provide Adequately for the Transport Needs of the Nation."
Motion relating to the Education (Governing Bodies of Institutions of Further Education) Regulations.
WEDNESDAY 18 NOVEMBER—Debate on a Government motion to take note of the White Papers on Developments in the European Community July-December 1986 (CM.122) and January-June 1987 (CM.205) and EC documents relating to the future financing of the Community. Details of the EC documents concerned will be given in the Official Report.
Motion on the Family Credit (General) Regulations.
THURSDAY 19 NOVEMBER—Motion on the Housing Benefit (General) Regulations.
FRIDAY 20 NOVEMBER—Private Members' motions.
MONDAY 23 NOVEMBER—Opposition Day (4th AllottedDay). The debate will arise on a motion in the name of the Leader of the Liberal party. Subject for debate to be announced.

[Debate on Monday 16 November 1987

Food Protection (Emergency Prohibitions) (No. 3) Order 1987 (S.I. 1987, No. 1837)
Food Protection (Emergency Prohibitions) (No. 4) Order 1987 (S.I. 1987, No. 1888)
Food Protection (Emergency Prohibitions) (Wales) (No. 5) Order 1987 (S.I. 1987, No. 1894)

Debate on Wednesday 18 November

Relevant European Documents:


(a) COM(87) 100
Future policies in light of Single European Act


(b) COM(87) 101
Future financing of the Community Budget


(c) 8248/87
Budgetary Discipline


(d) 8249/87
Own Resources


(e) 8251/87
Reform of structural funds


(f) 8087/87
Amendment to Financial Regulation


(g) 8940/87
Third Amendment to Financial Regulation

Relevant Reports of European Legislation Committee

(a) HC 22-xvii ( 1986–87), para 6
HC 22-xx (1986–87), para 2
(b) HC 22-xix ( 1986–87), para 1
(c) HC 43-v (1987–88), para 3
(d) HC 43-v (1987–88), para 3
(e) HC 43-v ( 1987–88), para 15
(f) HC 43-v (1987–88), para 15]

Mr. Hattersley: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. I want to ask the Leader of the House three

specific questions. First, he will recall that the Government have taken a decision to deny unemployment benefit for six months to employees who it is said have left their jobs unreasonably. Should not a statement on that subject have been made to the House? Will he arrange for a statement to be made to the House next week justifying that petty and vindictive act?
Secondly, when is the House likely to debate the Autumn Statement? Must we wait for the constitution of the Treasury and Civil Service Committee and then for the Committee to consider the Autumn Statement? The Opposition believe that we should debate it more speedily than that.
Thirdly, with regard to the section 2 of the Official Secrets Act 1911, the only thing that became clear during the Prime Minister's comments today concerned the prospects of the hon. Member for Thanet, South (Mr. Aitken) ever receiving a knighthood. We need to know the Government's intentions on that Act. May we be assured that there will be no press leaks and that the Prime Minister, or whoever is lucky enough to have responsibility for the subject, will come to the House as soon as a decision is finally made and tell the House, rather than tell the newspapers as happened earlier this week?

Mr. Wakeham: The right hon. Gentleman asked me three specific questions. On the regulations concerning voluntary unemployment, the benefit sanctions are intended to discourage people from leaving jobs without good reason. The House will have ample opportunity to debate these changes, which require an affirmative order and regulations. Therefore, I see no need for a statement to be made next week.
With regard to the Autumn Statement, it would be obviously to the benefit of hon. Members if the House could have the advice of the Treasury and Civil Service Committee before it debates the matter, but I recognise the need to get on with it. I give a clear undertaking that the debate on the Autumn Statement will be before the Christmas recess.
With regard to Official Secrets Act 1911, I cannot say other than that work is going on. A statement will be made to the House as soon as a decision is made.

Mr. Terence L. Higgins: Does my right hon. Friend accept that there will be great difficulties if the Select Committees are not set up by next week, not least in the context of the Autumn Statement that the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) mentioned? Will he make sure that time is available to ensure that that occurs in the course of proceedings next week?

Mr. Wakeham: I recognise what my right hon. Friend has said. I note that the recommendations of the Committee on selection are on the Order Paper, but they were blocked. It will be a matter for the Chairman of the Committee to determine when he would like them brought before the House again.

Mr. James Wallace: The Leader of the House will be aware that NIREX issued a discussion document today on the disposal of radioactive waste. Given the concern of many hon. Members about the issue and the fact that NIREX wants a wide discussion on it, will the Government provide time to discuss the matter in the House?
Secondly, does the Leader of the House agree that, given the support yesterday by the hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould) for the B-Cal-BA merger and the apparent opposition to it by the Leader of the Opposition, a debate would be useful to elucidate the Labour party's position?

Mr. Wakeham: The second part of the hon. Gentleman's question seems to be a subject that could well form part of next Tuesday's transport debate.
Responsibility for identifying a suitable method of and location for a disposal facility rests with NIREX. Its consultation exercise began today with the publication of a discussion paper. Hon. Members are encouraged to read that paper and comment to NIREX. It would be better to await the outcome of the consultation exercise and see what proposals NIREX brings forward before considering a debate.

Mr. Teddy Taylor: In view of the imminence of the Eurotunnel share offer, does my right hon. Friend agree that it is vital that the Chancellor of the Exchequer makes an early statement to assure us that the welcome and repeated assurances about Government finance for the tunnel will not be undermined by the Bank of England, which is an arm of Government, using cash in its control to invest in the project?

Mr. Wakeham: I recognise that at a late hour during Tuesday's sitting I did not give my hon. Friend a full answer to the question that he asked in slightly different terms. There is no intention to use either the issue department or the banking department of the Bank of England to buy equity share capital in Eurotunnel. I shall refer my hon. Friend's interest to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor.

Mr. Dick Douglas: Will the Leader of the House accept that all hon. Members greatly appreciate the courtesy shown to the House by the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster in making a statement today on the European Space Agency, despite the dislocation of business yesterday? Will he accept that that only highlights the discourtesy to the House of the lack of a statement on Scottish Homes by the Secretary of State for Scotland? Will he ask his colleague the Secretary of State for Scotland to come forward next week and show some courtesy to the House?

Mr. Wakeham: I cannot accept that criticism. The Secretary of State was willing to make a statement to mark the publication of the White Paper. However, the date of publication having passed, there is no urgent need for discussion. Opportunities for full discussion will arise during the debates on the proposed legislation.

Mr. Michael Latham: Bearing in mind the importance of the Housing Bill to the Government's housing policy, does my right hon. Friend expect it to he published next week?

Mr. Wakeham: I cannot give my hon. Friend a firm undertaking, but the Bill will be published shortly.

Mr. Nigel Spearing: With regard to next Wednesday's business will the Leader of the House consider providing separate debates for the retrospective consideration of White Papers and the prospective consideration of future financing? In that regard, is he aware that the proposals for Britain's rebate payments,

which will replace the Fontainebleau formula negotiated by the Prime Minister, have been outlined in Commission document 101? I have it on good authority that the document was published yesterday in Brussels. Will the right hon. Gentleman do his best to ensure that that document is before the House during the debate on Wednesday?

Mr. Wakeham: I recognise the hon. Gentleman's great knowledge of and interest in these matters, but I cannot give him the undertaking that he requires. If by chance he and I should have a discussion about these matters later today, we will be able to discuss the matter in more detail.

Mr. Patrick Cormack: For the third successive week may I raise the subject of haemophiliac AIDS victims? Is my right hon. Friend aware that the sympathy and understanding that he showed last week was greatly appreciated and gave considerable encouragement to those outside as well as inside the House? May we expect a statement from the Secretary of State for Social Services next week? If the Government were to respond to the needs of these people and their reasonable requests, that would be warmly welcomed.

Mr. Wakeham: I accept what my hon. Friend says, and I hope that we will deal with the matter as soon as possible.

Mr. Sydney Bidwell: Will the right hon. Gentleman join me in expressing horror at the events of a few hours ago in my constituency, with the death of one man, and possibly others? Does he agree that everything possible should he done to bring the culprits to book and that nothing should stand in the way of the efforts of the police to achieve that end? The local community and others should be cautioned against jumping the gun or leaping to premature conclusions.

Mr. Wakeham: I am sure that the House shares those sentiments. May I say how much we appreciate the leadership that the hon. Gentleman has shown for many years in trying to maintain understanding between the communities in his constituency.

Mr. Robin Maxwell-Hyslop: As it is absolutely clear that there is no point in the Chairman of the Selection Committee retabling the motion to set up the Select Committees unless and until the Government give time for that above the line on the Order Paper, to prevent automatic blocking, when is my right hon. Friend going to give time that will enable the Chairman of the Selection Committee to take effective rather than nominal action for the setting up of the Select Committees?

Mr. Wakeham: The Chairman of the Committee of Selection will not find me wanting. As soon as he feels that he has a reasonable chance of resolving these matters I shall act, because I am as anxious as he is to get on with setting up the Committees.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: Does the Leader of the House recall that in August I wrote to him about the allocation of money to opposition parties, particularly the problem that he has in the allocation of that money to the SDP? Is he aware that the allocation is based on the number of Members of Parliament returned, together with a sum of money allocated on the basis of the number of people who cast votes at the general election preceding the allocation of the money? As we have not one, but possibly


two SDP parties, how will he allocate the money? If a rump of SDP supporters form a mutation and choose a new leader in the House, as is likely, who will receive the £62,000? Will it go to the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan), who supposedly leads the authentic section of the SDP, or will it go to the provisional wing, which is represented in Sainsbury's supermarkets?

Mr. Wakeham: I well remember the letter that the hon. Gentleman sent me, which was written in his own fair hand. I hope that he will allow me to keep it among my souvenirs for my later life. I must say that the hon. Gentleman's letter posed problems rather than gave me solutions to problems. I assure him that before too long there will be an opportunity for him to give the House an insight into his thinking on the matter.

Mr. James Kilfedder: May we have a debate as soon as possible on the Anglo-Irish Agreement so that we may talk about extending it to the whole of the United Kingdom, as there are more nationals of the Irish Republic living in England than in the whole of Northern Ireland? We could discuss, too, all those who have fled from the Republic to benefit from the social services in England, as well as those who have come here to seek divorce, abortion or contraceptives. Finally, we should give the Opposition representatives of the Nationalist community in Northern Ireland the opportunity to come out unequivocally in full support of the members of the security forces, the soldiers and the police, who daily face death to protect everyone in the community from the gunmen.

Mr. Wakeham: I recognise the feelings and the concern of many hon. Members on these matters. However, at the moment we should be very careful about having a debate that might exacerbate differences rather than heal them. I shall talk to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland to get his views before I come forward with proposals.

Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: Has the Leader of the House had an opportunity to study early-day motion 214 on the environmental consequences of the Grande Carajas project in Brazil?
[That this House is concerned that the Grande Carajas project in Brazil is environmentally damaging and disastrous for the indigenous people of the area; welcomes the recent report from Survival International which describes the devastating effects of the scheme; calls on Her Majesty's Government to support the proposals outlined in the report; and demands that Her Majesty's Government use its influence to stop the use of EEC and World Bank profits to finance projects that are environmentally damaging to the eco-system of the Amazon rain forests.]
Will the Leader of the House ensure that in the near future the House has an opportunity to discuss the British Government's attitude to the world debt crisis, their funding through the World Bank and the EEC of environmentally damaging projects such as the Grande Carajas project, and the damage that is being done to the economies of many Latin American countries by the imposition of totally unsuitable economic models upon those countries?

Mr. Wakeham: My hon. Friend the Minister for Overseas Development is looking into the matters raised in Survival International's report and will write to that body in due course.

Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson: While Northern Ireland is without a devolved administration, has my right hon. Friend given any thought to a Select Committee on Northern Ireland Affairs along the lines of the Scottish Affairs Committee? What would be the procedure for creating such a Select Committee, which would be a precedent?

Mr. Wakeham: It would be easier to deal with the procedure than to get everyone to agree that the move was worth while. I have given some thought to the matter, but I do not believe that it would be right to take such a step at present. However, these matters are constantly under review.

Mr. Andrew Welsh: Given that the NIR EX report makes Scotland the prime target to be used as a dumping-ground for nuclear waste, will the Leader of the House reconsider his previous answer and allow a debate so that urgent and proper consideration can be given to this very important matter?

Mr. Wakeham: I have to say that the report only confirms the wisdom of my original answer. I suggest that the hon. Gentleman reads the report more carefully.

Sir Anthony Grant: Following an earlier question, will my right hon. Friend spare a thought for the people of Scotland, who have been unable to get their questions answered this week because of the incompetence and disunity of the Opposition? Might not that be rectified by an extra Supply day for a debate entitled failure of the Opposition to conduct its affairs in such a way as to give proper representation to the people of Scotland?

Mr. Wakeham: My hon. Friend tempts me, but today is not a day for raking over yesterday's business. Scottish Opposition Members should concentrate hard to decide whether three of them are prepared to serve on the Select Committee, because we lack them at the moment.

Mr. Eric S. Heffer: Will the right hon. Gentleman reconsider the reply that he gave last week about a debate on the future of the construction industry? The right hon. Gentleman said that we could discuss it during a debate on proposals for the housing industry. Housing is just one part of the construction industry. It is a large industry, the largest in the country. On that basis, and with all the growing problems, such as the growth of lump labour, the fact that more and more people are being killed and injured every year, the continuity of employment, and so on, is it not important that we should have a debate on the industry as a whole and not use other Bills and other issues within the industry to try to discuss the whole matter?

Mr. Wakeham: I recognise that the answer that I gave the hon. Gentleman last week was not entirely satisfactory, for the reasons that he has just given. However, it was the best answer that I could offer him at the time. I am afraid that there are many calls on the time of the House, and although I shall bear the matter in mind, I cannot promise a debate immediately.

Mr. Nicholas Budgen: Will my right hon. Friend say that in the week after 1 December the Government will provide an opportunity for a full debate on the Anglo-Irish Agreement, so that the House may have the advantage of considering any debate in the Dail on the extradition proposals, and so that the Government may have an opportunity to explain, in the light of two years' experience, how they see the agreement?

Mr. Wakeham: I recognise the importance of the subject, but I do not think that I can add to the answer that I gave earlier.

Mr. Frank Cook: I am somewhat dismayed by the right hon. Gentleman's response to the two questions that he has been asked on the NIREX document. He seems to be saying that the standards for the discussion in the House will be set by the contents of the document. Will the Leader of the House take it from me that the document is incomplete? It makes no reference to the most reasonable proposition, namely, engineered storage at the surface on the site at which it originates, where it can be managed, redeemed, monitored and repackaged if necessary. The Leader of the House, of all people, must know that that subject can have grievous consequences at election times. Will he give the House the assurance that the subject will be discussed at an early date, that it will be a full debate and that it will not be in any way decisive in imposing the decision upon the people of this country?

Mr. Wakeham: I do not think that I can add to the answer that I have given, except to suggest that perhaps the hon. Gentleman could have a word with his right hon. and hon. Friends to see whether he can obtain assistance from them.

Mr. Michael Fallon: Will my right hon. Friend reflect on the important environmental and conservation issues raised during the passage of the Felixstowe Dock and Railway Bill, particularly the Labour party's concern for the over-protected species, the greater registered dockworker? May we have an early debate on the operation of the dock labour scheme in general, especially the desire of the other ports in this country to be free of the scheme and to recruit more workers?

Mr. Wakeham: I thought that my hon. Friend was going to ask whether we could have a debate on redshanks, waders and other matters. I would be able to tell him that I would welcome that, because I have been a member of the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds for 40 years. I have not been a member of the dock labour scheme, but I shall refer the matter to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment.

Mr. Greville Janner: Will the right hon. Gentleman ask the Attorney-General to make a statement to the House on his deplorable decision not to initiate prosecution proceedings against the perpetrators of the offensive, racist and lying document entitled "Holocaust News", which has been circulated, not only widely in my constituency but, I believe, to every hon. Member? Will he at least seek to confirm that there must be some law in the land to prevent that sort of offence from being given by way of political pornography of the worst and most vile sort?

Mr. Wakeham: I recognise the hon. and learned Gentleman's concern in these matters, and I shall certainly refer the matter to my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General.

Mr. Barry Porter: My right hon. Friend may recall that in distant days we used to have debates on the English regions, usually in Government time. In years gone by I could never understand why the Government allowed that time, for obvious reasons. Now that times are better, will my right hon. Friend find time for a debate on the north-west region so that we can say how well we have done and how much better we intend to do in the future?

Mr. Wakeham: That is a very good idea, but I cannot promise a debate at the moment. If my hon. Friend has the opportunity to take part, however, that would encourage me to look further at such a possibility.

Mr. Bob Cryer: Will the Leader of the House make a statement on commercial lobbying interests, particularly in view of the stench of financial inducement to vote in a particular way that we have observed over the past few days, which represents merely the tip of the iceberg of commercial lobbying in this place? Will he also make a statement on the timeshare developers' association involving Barratt, Costain and Wimpey, which have no doubt contributed to Tory party funds, using this place for the purposes of an exhibition and providing further drinks for Members on the Terrace? Is it not pretty appalling that the House of Commons seems to have been handed over to the financial supporters of the Tory party at the whim of the Government in office?

Mr. Wakeham: I do not accept many of the hon. Gentleman's allegations. However, I consider it right that we should get on and deal with the question of the Register of Members' Interests. It is for the Select Committee on Members' Interests to decide when to lay the Register before the House. I understand that the Committee has not yet done that, because some hon. Members on both sides of the House have not yet registered. The Committee feels that a delay of a week or two may enable a complete Register to be placed before the House.

Mr. Tony Marlow: While it could be said to be a bit savage and uncharitable to kick a suicidal institution in a sensitive area, may we have a debate on the Church of England? In the meantime, will my right hon. Friend tell the House whether he considers it right to sustain a Bench of Bishops in the other place for as long as the Church continues to fudge and funk fundamental biblical and moral issues?

Mr. Wakeham: My hon. Friend will no doubt continue to put his point of view in his own special way, but I must tell him that the Church of England and the Synod are an important element in the setting of moral standards in our society. I am sure that they will take that into account when reaching any decisions that they may make.

Mr. Jimmy Hood: Will the Leader of the House find time next week to discuss the newly established office in London of the South African coal industry, and will he allow the House time to discuss what involvement the director of that office, a Mr. Robert Swain, has with Government Departments, in view of his known links with the South African secret service and alleged links with the British secret service?

Mr. Wakeham: I shall not arrange for such a debate next week, but if the hon. Gentleman would like to write to me about the matter I shall find out whether there is any Government responsibility.

Mr. Harry Greenway: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, as my constituency is near both Heathrow and Gatwick airports, a substantial number of my constituents work for British Airways and British Caledonian? They welcome the report of the Monopolies and Mergers Commission and the Government's response to it. However, many others work for small airlines and they have a sizeable and legitimate interest in obtaining access to routes and slots, as discussed in that report. May we have a proper, full debate on the report as soon as possible?

Mr. Wakeham: If that is a trailer for the speech for which my hon. Friend may seek to catch your eye, Mr. Speaker, in next Tuesday's transport debate, I for one shall try to come and listen to it.

Mr. John McAllion: Is the Leader of the House aware that Councillor Neil Powrie, the leader of the Conservative opposition on Dundee district council, is at present on a visit to South Africa as the official guest of the South African Government? Is he also aware that Councillor Powrie will be having discussions with the National and Conservative parties in South Africa, thereby lending credibility to the perpetrators of an evil and inhuman system? Given the press report this morning that Foreign Office representatives are having discussions with the ANC later this week, does Councillor Powrie's visit represent a change of policy on the Government's part? Do the Government support Councillor Powrie's visit to South Africa?

Mr. Wakeham: There has been no change in Government policy. I cannot comment on the Councillor's visit.

Mr. Bill Walker: Has my right hon. Friend had an opportunity to look at early-day motion 281?
[That this House expresses its grave concern at the allegations made in the Scottish Television programme dealing with the financial affairs of Dundee Labour clubs and the Dundee Labour Party and a number of individuals who were named in the programme and who were active in public affairs in Dundee during the period when substantial financial losses were incurred by the Dundee Labour clubs, and calls upon the Government and the law officers to report at an early date on the effect the financial losses have had on Dundee District Council's rent and rates collection.]
If so, may we have an early opportunity to debate its contents, which relate to a television programme that was shown in Scotland concerning the affairs of Dundee district council and the Labour party in Dundee ; allegations that large sums of money have disappeared, and that, indeed, there have been acts of homosexuality?
Four hon. Members were named in the programme —the hon. Members for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Doran), for Dundee, West (Mr. Ross), for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Mr. McKelvey) and for Glasgow, Hillhead (Mr. Galloway), and if—

Mr. Frank Dobson: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I think that that was an unacceptable slur on the hon. Members involved.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. If the hon. Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) wishes to reflect on the conduct of any hon. Member, he must do so on a motion.

Mr. Walker: rose—

Mr. Wakeham: rose—

Mr. Dobson: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. That was a most clear innuendo—if there is such a thing— against four of my hon. Friends. I put it to you that things have been said by Labour Members that have led to you demanding that they be withdrawn, and they have either been withdrawn or the hon. Member has been asked to leave the Chamber.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I agree. I think that it would be right for the hon. Member for Tayside, North to withdraw what he said.

Mr. Walker: I never completed my sentence, Mr. Speaker. [HON. MEMBERS: "Withdraw."]

Mr. Speaker: rose—

Mr. Walker: Please, Mr. Speaker, this is fundamental. I am trying to defend—

Mr. Speaker: Order. Will the hon. Gentleman complete his sentence by withdrawing any allegation about any hon. Member.

Mr. Walker: I am making no allegation, Mr. Speaker.I want to make that quite clear. I am not making an allegation. Two of those hon. Members are friends of mine. The remarks were made in a television programme that was seen throughout Scotland, and those hon. Members have two courses by which to clear their names —one is in this place, where we have an opportunity to raise such matters, and the other is through legal action. I am trying to help them.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I call the Leader of the House.

Mr. Wakeham: Would it be in order for me to answer the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker), because these are important matters? The Government's view on the need to strengthen local government accountability for its financial behaviour is well known. By their actions they will continue to press for that accountability to be the subject of the voting judgment of those electors it affects.

Hon. Members: "Disgraceful."

Mr. Cryer: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Please sit down.
Despite what the hon. Member for Tayside, North has said, I have not seen the programme, but I note that the thrust of his question was an allegation against hon. Members of the House. I ask him now, please, to withdraw that.

Mr. Walker: If I have made any allegations against the integrity of any Member of the House, I withdraw them without hesitation. However, I was not making any allegation. I was referring to them in the context of the programme.

Mr. Speaker: I asked the hon. Gentleman if he would withdraw any allegation without any qualification.

Mr. Dobson: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Order. In the aftermath of yesterday, and with exchanges such as this today, let me say that the reputation of our House of Commons is in the mouths, actions and behaviour of hon. Members. What went on yesterday. and matters of this kind in the House, bring the House into grave disrepute. I hope that we will give a lead to the nation by our good behaviour in this place and by good standards. That was not a full withdrawal of his comments, so will the hon. Member for Tayside, North now withdraw them unreservedly?

Mr. Walker: I unhesitatingly—I mean unhesitatingly — withdraw. I said earlier that two of the Members named are friends of mine. They may be on the Opposition Benches, but they are friends.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. Friendships span across the Chamber. The hon. Gentleman has unreservedly withdrawn his comment, and I accept that.

Mr. Dobson: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am sorry to go on. The hon. Gentleman has now apparently withdrawn the accusation that he was making against four of my hon. Friends, but what perturbs me just as much —it is related to my previous point of order—is that the Leader of the House came to the House prepared to answer that very question, which was out of order. It is outrageous that he should have come so prepared.

Mr. Wakeham: rose—

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I shall take any points of order that may arise on this after questions. Who was next?

Mr. Jeff Rooker: May we have a statement next week from any Minister with responsibility for health on why last weekend, at less than 24 hours' notice, half the beds in the cardiac unit of the children's hospital in Birmingham were closed, causing massive anguish to parents throughout the west midlands this week? Babies less than a week old had to queue up for operations, which were then suspended because the beds had been closed. Such action surely demands some kind of ministerial statement.

Mr. Wakeham: Obviously, anything of that sort is greatly distressing to everybody on both sides of the House. Operationally, it is a matter for those who are dealing with the services locally. It is not directly a matter for the Minister for Health. If there is any way in which he can help he will do so, and I shall refer the matter to him, but I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not forget the substantial increase of funding of the Health Service that was announced recently — a £2·8 billion cash injection into the Health Service in the next four years, the biggest increase that has ever been announced.

Mr. Andrew MacKay: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is important that the House should have a chance to debate the claims that Vanessa Redgrave and other CND members financed the operation to spring the Soviet spy George Blake from Wormwood Scrubs?

Mr. Wakeham: I cannot promise an early debate on that matter, but I have no doubt that my hon. Friend can find a way of raising it.

Mr. Alistair Darling: Further to the unsatisfactory answer that the Leader of the House gave me last night, and my hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline, (Mr. Douglas) a short while ago, does he accept that there is now every need for the Secretary of State for Scotland to make a statement on the Government's proposals for Scottish Homes? Does he not realise that the proposals will mean substantial rent rises for many Scottish people? As Scottish business was squeezed out yesterday, mainly at the Government's behest, and as there appears to be an interest in Scotland on both sides of the House, even from unexpected quarters, will he now get the Secretary of State to make a statement on Scottish Homes next week?

Mr. Wakeham: Of course, prolonged filibusters, from wherever they come, cause difficulties for all of us. I was here through the night and I witnessed from where the filibustering came, but I cannot add anything to what I have already said.

Mr. Geoffrey Dickens: May I ask—

Mr. Speaker: Let us have Mr. Holt first.

Mr. Dickens: I give way.

Mr. Richard Holt: Would my right hon. Friend care to note that there is great disappointment in the country that this Parliament has not debated capital punishment and it is time that we had a debate on that, particularly in the light of what happened last week?

Mr. Wakeham: I recognise the concern and, as I have said previously, I have no doubt that there will be a debate on capital punishment when the Criminal Justice Bill comes from another place.

Mrs. Alice Mahon: Will the Leader of the House look at early-day motion 282 about the crisis in the NHS in Halifax?
[That this House condemns the Government's inadequate funding of the National Health Service, whkich has led to a financial crisis in Halifax resulting in the district health authority taking a decision to implement £½ million cuts; notes that these cuts will lead to: (a) the premature closure of Faldon Hospital for the Mentally Handicapped,  (b) the closure of a gynaecology ward and (c) the closure of an acute psychiatric ward; and believes that these measures will lead, inevitably, to an increase in waiting lists and a serious deterioration in the service provided to the people of Halifax.]
In view of the right hon. Gentleman's previous remarks, will he allow time for a debate and explain to us why, if all that money has been spent on the NHS. we are facing yet another £500,000 worth of cuts, which will lead to the closure of a hospital for the mentally-handicapped, and a gynaecology and a mental illness ward? Why, when there is such a crisis in caring for the mentally ill in Halifax, and when the health advisory service has condemned the care of the mentally ill in Halifax, is another ward to be closed for purely budgetary reasons? May we have time for a debate?

Mr. Wakeham: The Chancellor's recent announcement on 3 November on the spending plans for the NHS in 1988–89 showed a 1·7 per cent. real increase over 1987–88 levels and a 32 per cent. real increase over 1978–79 levels. Health authorities, like other organisations, are required


to work within their budgets. Measures recently announced by the Calderdale health authority will not affect the overall level of service provided to patients. Faldon hospital's case represents only the earlier implementation of the plans contained in its longer-term strategy.

Mr. Dickens: Following the debate in the Church of England Synod this week and the helpful advice that we have received in this honourable House on occasions from bishops, will my right hon. Friend make some time available for a debate on the future of the Church of England, so that we can call on the Church to purge its pulpits of homosexual vicars, many of whom have proved to be a danger to children?

Mr. Wakeham: I recognise the strong feelings of my hon. Friend and of other hon. Members. However, I am afraid that I cannot offer any Government time in the near future.

Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: I have lost my voice, Mr. Speaker, but may I ask the Leader of the House to reconsider the answer that he gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton, North (Mr. Cook)? Does he recall that on the last occasion that NIREX made recommendations they failed, there was a row, and the Minister and, indeed, the Leader of the House, had to be rescued before the general election? We do not want that to happen again. May we have a debate on these matters prior to the recommendations being made?

Mr. Wakeham: I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman has lost his voice, but I am not sure that my sympathy is shared by everybody in the House. However, he seems to have lost his memory also, because my recollection of events is different from the one that he has recounted to the House.

Mr. David Shaw: Will my right hon. Friend please take note of the Eurotunnel share advertisements, which suggest that a number of free journeys across the English channel may be obtained by the buyers of certain numbers of shares? Will he draw that to the attention of his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, so that an early statement can be made to the effect that such free offers on journeys would be a benefit received by shareholders and would be assessable to income tax? In consequence, the offer may seem less attractive, and investors should be fully informed of that when the prospectus is published.

Mr. Wakeham: The question of any prospectus and the terms in which it is couched are fully covered in our statute law. Eurotunnel is a private consortium that takes its own decisions. I do not believe that there is any responsibility on me to tell the House that it can get on with it.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: In view of your concern, Mr. Speaker, about standards in the House being in grave disrepute, and because standards start at the top, has the Leader of the House noticed the following early-day motions : No. 228.
[That this House notes in the hook, Campaign, by Rodney Tyler, the Selling of the Prime Minister: from behind the doors of Downing Street and Conservative Central Office—A unique inside account of the Battle for Power that the author on page 1, chapter 1, paragraph 1, sentence 1, states 'It was an extraordinary turnaround in

fortunes from the moment on 27th January 1986 when Mrs. Thatcher secretly confided to a close associate that she might have to resign …' and on page 3 that 'On the eve of the crucial Westland debate she herself shakey enough to doubt her future' though some around her later sought to dismiss this as late evening anxieties of the sort that had disappeared the following morning). It is certainly true that if Leon Brittan had chosen to, he could have brought her to the brink of downfall, by naming the real culprits inside Number 10. Instead, he chose to remain silent', and calls on the Prime Minister to give a full account of what transpired between 3rd January and 27th January 1986, at Number 10 Downing Street, in relation to the selectively leaked Law Office's letter concerning the Westland Affair].
No. 253,
[That this House notes that the Member for Aldershot on page 136 of his book Heseltine: the unauthorised Biography, states in relation to the Westland Affair that 'John Wakeham issued an order of the day which contained the trite, if effective message, that it was time for all good men to come to the aid of the party, we did.' and calls on the Leader of the House, The Right Honourable Member for South Colchester and Maldon, to explain when he first knew the role of the then Trade and Industry Secretary, The Right Honourable Member for Richmond, Yorks, in the matter of the disclosure of a selectively leaked Law Officer's letter.]
No. 272,
[That this House notes that in his book Mrs. Thatcher's Revolution, published this week by Jonathan Cape and Co., Mr. Peter Jenkins writes, on page 200 'Brittan himself refused to enlighten the Select Committee on any point of substance. However, he is reputed to have told close friends subsequently that not only has she known perfectly well what had happened but that, on the day following the leak, had expressed her satisfaction to him at the way things had been handled. However at that time, the downfall of Heseltine had not been achieved. … He ( Mr. Brittan) might point the finger at her ( Mrs. Thatcher). Potentially he now had the power to destroy her'; and calls on the Prime Minister to give the House a full account of her conversations with the then Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, the Right honourable Member for Richmond, Yorks, over the period from 3rd January and 27th January 1986, in relation to the selectively leaked Law Officer's letter concerning the Westland Affair.
No. 273,
[That this House notes that in The Thatcher Years— A decade of Revolution in British Politics, published by BBC Books, Mr. John Cole, on page 170, considering the selectively leaked Law Officer's letter in the Westland Affair, writes 'why did he ( Sir Robert Armstrong) not give her a quick interim report when he discovered that the leak was an inside job, authorised by her office? Why did Leon Brittan not tell her? Or the private secretary concerned? Or his chief, who sits in the same room? Or her press secretary? And why did she never ask?'; and calls on the Prime Minister to inform the House of the answers to these questions.]
No. 286,
[That this House notes that, in the book 'Not with Honour—The Inside Story of the Westland Scandal', on page 142, Magnus Linklater and David Leigh write that Instead, following Havers's complaint, she spoke privately to Brittan about the leak. Although this is something the Prime Minister has failed to disclose, to widespread disbelief, the evidence comes from an authoritative source, who told us: "The Prime Minister knew about the leak. She


was pleased it had been done. There was a meeting between Britian and her after the complaint from Mayhew. Only the two of them were present … Brittan assumed she knew of [the leak's] origins. You must draw your own conclusions." One of Brittan's friends adds, "Nobody thought it was a problem. The complaints were out of the public domain and any inquiry was expected to be a formality. Leon wasn't worried at all about it."; and calls on the Prime Minister to give a full account to the House of the meeting between herself and Right honourable Member for Richmond, Yorks, referred to therein.]
Will the right hon. Gentleman provide an opportunity next week for the Prime Minister to explain to the House why she told my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) on 27 January that she did not know about the role of her then Trade Secretary until the inquiry had reported'? Will she confirm that Mr. Charles Powell did, indeed, keep her fully informed? Will she explain why, for the protection of her position as Prime Minister, and in order to remain in Downing street, she told the House a necessary and indispensable lie?

Mr. Wakeham: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must withdraw that last comment.

Mr. Dalyell: It is not a question of being economical with the truth. It is a question of—

Mr. Speaker: No. The hon. Gentleman started his speech with a perfectly correct preamble on his and my concern about standards in this House. Will he please withdraw that statement?

Mr. Dalyell: Good standards start at the top.

Mr. Speaker: Order. That is not the point. Will the hon. Gentleman please unreservedly withdraw that statement?

Mr. Dalyell: I must make my position quite clear. I believe that the real affront has been to the House.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I have some memory of this matter. Will the hon. Gentleman please withdraw his comment about the Prime Minister?

Mr. Dalyell: Having been here for 25 years, I believe that the real affront is to the House of Commons and that it will damage its standing with the public.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I give the hon. Gentleman one more chance. I have some memory of this matter and I am sorry that this has surfaced again today. Will the hon. Gentleman please withdraw the comment about the Prime Minister?

Mr. Dalyell: I must make it clear that if I had been going to withdraw it I would not have said it in the first place. I really mean it.

Mr. Speaker: Well, in that case the hon. Gentleman puts me in an extremely difficult position. I shall be forced to name him unless he will withdraw that comment.

Mr. Dalyell: I do not withdraw it. I believe that it is quite clear that I set out in the debate on the Defence Committee reports on Wednesday of the week before last—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I name Mr. Tam Dalyell for persistent disobedience of the Chair.

Mr. Heffer: rose—

Mr. Andrew Faulds (Watley, East): rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Motion made, and Question put,
That Mr. Tam Dalyell be suspended from the service of the House.—[Mr. Wakeham]

Several Hon. Members: rose—
The House proceeded to a Division—

Mr. Heffer: (seated and covered)On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I understand that when a Member has been named in the House and the Government have moved the motion, we are allowed to debate it.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman is incorrect. The Question must be put forthwith, as I have done.

The House having divided: Ayes 220, Noes 102.

Division No. 68]
[4.15 pm


AYES


Adley, Robert
Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey


Aitken, Jonathan
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Foster, Derek


Allason, Rupert
Fowler, Rt Hon Norman


Amos, Alan
Fox, Sir Marcus


Arbuthnot, James
French, Douglas


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Gardiner, George


Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)
Garel-Jones, Tristan


Ashby, David
Gill, Christopher


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian


Baldry, Tony
Glyn, Dr Alan


Batiste, Spencer
Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles


Beith, A. J.
Gorst, John


Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)


Benyon, W.
Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Griffiths, Sir Eldon (Bury St E')


Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)


Boswell, Tim
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Bottomley, Peter
Hampson, Dr Keith


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Hannam, John


Bowis, John
Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr')


Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes
Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)


Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard
Harris, David


Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Cl't's)
Hayes, Jerry


Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)
Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Hayward, Robert


Buck, Sir Antony
Heathcoat-Amory, David


Budgen, Nicholas
Heddle, John


Butcher, John
Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael


Butler, Chris
Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.


Carlisle, John, (Luton N)
Hind, Kenneth


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Holt, Richard


Carrington, Matthew
Howard, Michael


Carttiss, Michael
Howarth, G. (Cannock &amp; B'wd)


Cartwright, John
Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)


Chapman, Sydney
Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)


Chope, Christopher
Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)


Churchill, Mr
Hughes, Simon (Southwark)


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Hunt, David (Wirral W)


Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)
Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)


Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)
Irvine, Michael


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Janman, Timothy


Cormack, Patrick
Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey


Couchman, James
Jones, Robert B (Herts W)


Cran, James
Key, Robert


Currie, Mrs Edwina
Kilfedder, James


Curry, David
King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)


Day, Stephen
King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)


Devlin, Tim
Kirkhope, Timothy


Dickens, Geoffrey
Knapman, Roger


Dicks, Terry
Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)


Dobson, Frank
Knowles, Michael


Dorrell, Stephen
Knox, David


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Latham, Michael


Durant, Tony
Lawrence, Ivan


Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark


Fallon, Michael
Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)


Farr, Sir John
Lightbown, David


Fearn, Ronald
Lilley, Peter


Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)
Livsey, Richard






Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)
Shelton, William (Streatham)


Lord, Michael
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


McCrindle, Robert
Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)


MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)
Sims, Roger


Maclean, David
Skeet, Sir Trevor


McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)
Soames, Hon Nicholas


Madel, David
Speed, Keith


Mans, Keith
Speller, Tony


Marlow, Tony
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Marshall, John (Hendon S)
Squire, Robin


Martin, David (Portsmouth S)
Stanbrook, Ivor


Maude, Hon Francis
Steel, Rt Hon David


Mawhinney, Dr Brian
Stern, Michael


Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Stevens, Lewis


Meyer, Sir Anthony
Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)


Mills, lain
Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)


Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Stradling Thomas, Sir John


Montgomery, Sir Fergus
Sumberg, David


Moore, Rt Hon John
Summerson, Hugo


Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Moss, Malcolm
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Moynihan, Hon C.
Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman


Needham, Richard
Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret


Nelson, Anthony
Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)


Neubert, Michael
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Newton, Tony
Thorne, Neil


Nicholls, Patrick
Thornton, Malcolm


Nicholson, David (Taunton)
Thurnham, Peter


Onslow, Cranley
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Oppenheim, Phillip
Twinn, Dr Ian


Page, Richard
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Paice, James
Waddington, Rt Hon David


Patnick, Irvine
Wakeham, Rt Hon John


Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Walker, Bill (T'side North)


Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth
Wallace, James


Porter, Barry (Wirral S)
Walters, Dennis


Portillo, Michael
Wardle, C. (Bexhill)


Price, Sir David
Warren, Kenneth


Raffan, Keith
Watts, John


Raison, Rt Hon Timothy
Wells, Bowen


Redwood, John
Wheeler, John


Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Wiggin, Jerry


Riddick, Graham
Wilshire, David


Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm
Winterton, Nicholas


Rossi, Sir Hugh
Wood, Timothy


Rost, Peter
Woodcock, Mike


Rowe, Andrew
Yeo, Tim


Ryder, Richard
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Sackville, Hon Tom



Scott, Nicholas
Tellers for the Ayes:


Shaw, David (Dover)
Mr. Peter Lloyd and Mr. Alan Howarth.


Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

 


NOES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Callaghan, Jim


Allen, Graham
Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)


Armstrong, Ms Hilary
Campbell-Savours, D. N.


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
Clay, Bob


Barron, Kevin
Clelland, David


Battle, John
Clwyd, Mrs Ann


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Cook, Frank (Stockton N)


Bennett, A. F. (D'nt'n &amp; R'dish)
Corbyn, Jeremy


Boateng, Paul
Cousins, Jim


Bradley, Keith
Cummings, J.


Caborn, Richard
Cunliffe, Lawrence





Dalyell, Tam
McKay, Allen (Pemstone)


Darling, Alastair
McLeish, Henry


Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)
Madden, Max


Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'l)
Mahon, Mrs Alice


Doran, Frank
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Duffy, A. E. P.
Martlew, Eric


Dunnachie, James
Meale, Alan


Eastham, Ken
Michael, Alun


Evans, John (St Helens N)
Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)


Faulds, Andrew
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Fields, Terry (L'pool B G'n)
Morgan, Rhodri


Fisher, Mark
Morley, Elliott


Flannery, Martin
Mowlam, Mrs Marjorie


Flynn, Paul
Nellist, Dave


Fyfe, Mrs Maria
O'Brien, William


Galloway, George
Patchett, Terry


Garrett, John (Norwich South)
Primarolo, Ms Dawn


Golding, Mrs Llin
Quin, Ms Joyce


Graham, Thomas
Reid, John


Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)
Richardson, Ms Jo


Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
Roberts, Allan (Bootle)


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


Hardy, Peter
Ruddock, Ms Joan


Heffer, Eric S.
Sedgemore, Brian


Hinchliffe, David
Sheerman, Barry


Holland, Stuart
Steinberg, Gerald


Home Robertson, John
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Hood, James
Turner, Dennis


Howarth, George (Knowsley N)
Vaz, Keith


Hoyle, Doug
Wall, Pat


Illsley, Eric
Walley, Ms Joan


Ingram, Adam
Wareing, Robert N.


Janner, Greville
Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)
Wilson, Brian


Litherland, Robert
Winnick, David


Livingstone, Ken
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Lofthouse, Geoffrey
Worthington, Anthony


Loyden, Eddie
Wray, James


McAllion, John



McAvoy, Tom
Tellers for the Noes:


McCartney, Ian
Mr. Bob Cryer and Mr. Dennis Skinner


Macdonald, Calum

Question accordingly agreed to.

Mr. Robert Hayward: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, relating to that vote.

Mr. Speaker: There can be no point of order.
Ordered,
That Mr. Tam Dalyell be suspended from the service of the House.

Mr. Speaker: I think that it would be wise to get on with the statement.

Mr. Frank Cook: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: I sense that the mood of the House is that we should get on with the statement.

Mr. Cook: rose—

Mr. Speaker: I will take it after the statement.

European Space Agency

The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and Minister of Trade and Industry (Mr. Kenneth Clarke): I should like to make a statement on the outcome of the European Space Agency council meeting that I attended at The Hague on 9–10 November.
The 13 European Space Agency member states met to discuss wide-ranging proposals for the agency's future development. This was the first ministerial meeting since the council in Rome in 1985 when members agreed on a blanced long-term plan for the next decade with the aim of moving by measured stages towards a wider European space capability. We have since underlined our commitment to ESA by the significant increased funding we have provided—no less than £85 million this year alone.
Since the Rome ministerial meeting, our commitment to European co-operation in space has not changed. What has changed, however, is the scale of ESA's aspirations. Overall, the total cost of the proposals put to us at The Hague would increase spending on space by more than two and half times over the next five years. For the United Kingdom, agreement to those programmes would have meant an increase to more than £200 million — the equivalent of more than a dozen new NHS hospitals— every year from now on.
Our objection is, however, not solely that the bill is so huge. We recognise that space research is expensive, but we cannot see sufficient scientific, industrial or commercial benefits to justify such a huge increase. My approach at the council was therefore to press for a reassessment of priorities under present-day conditions, and to develop a strategy designed to achieve worthwhile aims which would yield solid and worthwhile returns.
Three major new optional programmes were presented by ESA: Ariane 5, a new heavy-lift launcher capable of putting three satellites into orbit; Columbus, the European involvement in the international space station project; and, at French insistence particularly, the Hermes manned spaceplane. I made it clear at the outset, as we had done in the preparation for the meeting, that I could not endorse the grandiose ambitions of the Hermes programme to put man in space by the year 2000. At enormous expense this would only achieve capabilities which the United States had achieved 20 years previously. There was considerable sympathy for my view from a number of other member states and it remains to be seen whether they will formally sign up to the programme in its entirety. At the moment, only six countries out of 13 have firmly committed themselves to making a contribution to the first phase of development.
On the Columbus space station programme, there has been no satisfactory conclusion yet to negotiations with the Americans about European participation. I declined to agree to proposals that Europe should in any event go ahead with a separate and autonomous version of the Columbus programme if agreement with the United States could not be reached. I said that we would consider further the proposal for a polar platform associated with Columbus, which would be an unmanned space vehicle, primarily for earth observation, that would be complementary to a similar United States platform. Our final position on that will depend on further discussions I shall

be holding with United Kingdom companies about the financial contribution they would be prepared to make to ensure their participation either in contracts to which they attach significance or as users of the platform.
My approach to the Ariane 5 launcher proposal was that emphasis should be given to ensuring that the European Space Agency has a fully commercial launch capability—for satellites, in particular. It is important to give European industry ready access to a launcher for telecommunications and other satellites. Again, however, I had to question the increase that some other members wanted solely in order for Ariane 5 to be man-rated, and to enable it to launch spaceships as well as satellites.
The European Space Agency executive also brought forward proposals for increases in the mandatory science and general budgets, which had already enjoyed major increases since the Rome ministerial meeting. The science budget will have increased by about 27 per cent in real terms—over and above inflation—between 1985 and 1989. The European Space Agency proposed a further increase of 5 per cent. per annum in real terms up until 1992. Professor Bill Mitchell, the chairman of the Science and Engineering Research Council. and I had to make it clear that there could be no justification for such a proposal. In our opinion, the European Space Agency could and should achieve the agreed scientific objectives within the currently agreed funding level. I could therefore not endorse the proposed increase.
Throughout the proceedings, I emphasised the need to take a fresh look at some of the new and hugely expensive European Space Agency proposals, which largely derive from a new desire to follow the Americans into manned space craft. I confirmed our substantial support for those parts of the established programme that gave due weight to industrial, economic, commercial and scientific considerations. I also argued for greater involvement of industry and users in the planning and financing of programmes. There was support from other Ministers for these aims, several of which were incorporated in the final Council resolution.
The United Kingdom remains one of the major participants in European space programmes. We have a budget of more than £110 million a year, and we shall continue to ensure that it is used as effectively as possilble. We shall continue to play a constructive role with our European partners, and I shall be holding meetings with United Kingdom companies to see how that can best be achieved.

Mr. Bryan Gould: Will the Minister accept that what we have just heard is not so much a statement, more an admission of failure? First, it is an admission of political failure because, even in terms of the right hon. and learned Gentleman's own stated objectives, he completely failed to bring about any reassessment of priorities within the European space programme, and found himself wholly isolated. He is reported as having said that he at least came back with his money still in his pocket. It might be nearer the truth to say that he came back with his tail between his legs and a flea in his ear.
Is it not true that, while the Government may be correct in describing some of the ESA programme as overambitious, they have no alternative future programme to suggest for the European Space Agency? Is it not the case that, however modest and sensible the ESA's expansion, the British Government would have opposed it on


principle? Can the Minister assure the House that we shall at least participate in the Columbus programme and try to secure the lead role in the polar platform satellite project?
Is not this decision the worst possible news for the no fewer than 300 United Kingdom firms that are involved in space? Will they not now inevitably fail to win contracts, and will they not face a new brain drain of top scientists to Europe? What chance do we have of retaining those scientists and programmes when all the worthwhile and advanced work is being done elsewhere?
Did the Government try to win ESA support for investment in the Hotol project? Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman amplify his teasing, unsatisfactory remarks about the possible Japanese funding of Hotol? How do the Government expect the private sector—it must be their expectation—to make up the gap in space spending? What mechanisms has the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster arranged for private sector contribution to the ESA? How can that possibly match the contribution that the Government — unlike 12 other—Governments have refused to make?
Is not the failure to back a British contribution to the European Space Agency symptomatic of a wider failure to back science in this country? Has the Minister seen the article in today's issue of Nature, which describes how British science is falling behind in metallurgy, biomedical engineering, solid state physics, civil and mechanical engineering, and material science? Those are all areas of weakness, and disciplines of great importance to our industrial future. Which of them will be hit by the Minister's opting out of the space programme in Europe?
Is the Minister aware that the Autumn Statement of a week or so ago promises real cuts in science spending over the next two years? Was his attitude at The Hague merely a reflection of that financial priority? Is he aware that his attitude at The Hague was a prime example of Thatcherism in action, characterised by short-term considerations—anti-investment, anti-scientist—and, in the end, uniting everyone else against us in opposition to the position that he took?

Mr. Clarke: First, I obviously do not accept the hon. Gentleman's diagnosis of the meeting. It is fashionable when reporting European meetings to describe them in terms of rows, failures, or successes, with people coming away saying that they gave each other bloody noses, or failed to, as the case may be. However, the atmosphere at the meeting was extremely friendly. My colleagues, Dr. Heinz Riesenhuber of Germany and Alain Madelin of France, are people with whom I am on friendly, satisfactory terms and with whom I usually agree on politics. We share a belief in strong European co-operation in this and as many other matters as possible. We discussed optional programmes to be added to the mandatory programmes, to which we are a strong contributor. We exercised our option to decline to join in projects which are essentially led by the Hermes spacecraft project—a new addition since the Rome meeting.
If the hon. Gentleman inquires among the British industrial and scientific communities, he will find remarkably little support there for Hermes—the name of the proposed spaceship — and much sympathy with my view that the desire to get into manned spacecraft has

been distorting the balance of the ESA programme. The only reason that I abstained at the end from supporting the resolution as a whole was not that I wanted to stop anybody going in for Hermes. If the French and the Germans want to pay for Hermes, I wish them success. I hope that Hermes succeeds eventually — if it matches their priorities.
I am worried that going in for the manned spacecraft will distort the balance of the whole programme, and perhaps damage the programmes in telecommunications and Earth observation which are our principal interests and which we think ought to be at the forefront of the programme. As Hermes gets into difficulties, I am sure that we will come back to the alternative that I put forward, that we should reassess priorities, and especially reassess what Ariane 5 was for, and get back to an assessment of the scientific and industrial objectives upon which we all started.

Mr. Gould: It did not happen.

Mr. Clarke: I agree that it did not altogether happen, but that was because the French put so much money into ESA. With the French prepared to put up almost half the cost, a decision was taken, to which only six member states firmly adhered, to press on with putting this spaceship in the centre of the programme. That was the position in which we were placed.
On alternatives, the hon. Gentleman mentioned the polar platform. I agree that that is an extremely interesting concept that has attractions for British industry and would enable valuable Earth observations to be conducted. Further discussions are required with the Americans, because to get the best value we must ensure that it relates to a similar American polar platform. In addition to the discussions that I have already had and which did not go very far, further discussions are required with British Aerospace and others who are interested in the polar platform to see upon what basis Government and industry might contribute if the Columbus programme goes forward in the way that we wish it to go forward.
What does this decision mean for firms? It means that we have decided not to go into these huge additional programmes, but it does not imply any reduction in our existing effort in space or in our existing contribution to the European Space Agency.
The hon. Gentleman asked about Hotol, the very ambitious programme put forward in particular by British Aerospace and Rolls-Royce for a re-usable spacecraft. That was not on the agenda at the ESA meeting and was scarcely mentioned. There was no prospect of ESA adopting it as a project and, so far, it has not been so adopted. I think that the French regard it as a competitor to the Ariane-Hermes project, which at the moment they have succeeded in promoting within the agency.
Hotol must be worked up to a serious project and we need to consider what international collaborators are available, because such collaborators are certainly required. That requires further discussions between British industry and the industries in the countries that are interested, and between the Government and British Aerospace and others about the next step in working up Hotol. There was never a snowball's chance in Hades that Hotol would be taken up by the European Space Agency at the Hague meeting. Sensibly, that was not put on the agenda.

Mr. Rhodri Morgan: rose—

Mr. Clarke: With respect, the hon. Gentleman cannot intervene now. He may ask a question in a moment.
We are interested in more private sector funding on those aspects of space work that produce a commercial return. Not all space research can do that, but some can, and we have succeeded in getting private sector funding in the development work oh a number of programmes. I shall give an example. With the agreement of practically every other member state represented at the meeting, I strongly stressed that the proposed data relay satellite is of such commercial potential that we should contemplate making it largely a private sector project. There would be strong British participation in that.
That matter was not clearly resolved because some member states, notably Italy, insisted that to a large extent it should be financed by Governments. I suspect that that sort of argument comes from countries that are not sure that their industries will get a large part of the work if it is left to the private sector to develop it and to British and other industries to compete on fair terms for the work that they can do best. We are interested in more private sector involvement. and that was put in the resolution. All the other 12 states agreed that we had to go further in getting private sector contributions.
The hon. Gentleman asked whether there was an increase in ESA's science budget. The answer to that is that there is. Professor Bill Mitchell, the chairman of the Science and Engineering Research Council went with me to the meeting. The hon. Gentleman would find that if my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science were to say that an additional £10 million was available for science and engineering research, Professor Mitchell would say that it should not be spent on space research because that is done very well and is not the highest priority.
The £200 million that the hon. Gentleman says we should spend each year on ESA — if he says that we should have signed up—is almost one third of the total amount that all the research councils at the moment put into the funding of all university and polytechnic programmes. It would be a huge slice from the scientific budget and the Science and Engineering Research Council and the Government and I had to decide whether that was a justifiable use of huge resources on what I regarded as largely non-scientific objectives.

Sir Geoffrey Pattie: While I support my right hon. and learned Friend in his desire for realistic programmes in space, is he not aware that Government spending on space has declined in real terms in the last few years? Is he not concerned that every country with a space capability is increasing its expenditure, while we appear to be cutting ours?

Mr. Clarke: Just making comparisons with what other countries spend does not take one far in many policy areas unless one asks on what those countries are spending money and if we are comparing like with like. When one looks at comparisons with other countries one finds that they are sometimes spending, not always very successfully, on quite different types of space programmes. They are not the kind of objectives that were on offer to us in ESA. We have to make a sensible appraisal of what is on offer.
If, in my discussions with British industry and in further council meetings of the European Space Agency, people

come forward with well-judged projects of proven commercial, industrial and scientific value, we will consider them, analyse them and put them alongside other scientific and commercial priorities. I should be happy to discuss such projects with my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary or with anybody else. When we are faced with a take-it-or-leave-it optional programme by an agency such as ESA, there is no point in saying that Britain has only one option and must choose to take what is on offer and go into things that I do not believe are in the interests of Britain's scientific or industrial community.

Mr. Malcolm Bruce: Will the Minister accept that there is considerable resentment about the very strong position that he has taken against co-operating with the 12 other countries in Europe? His comment that was widely reported and, I think, broadcast on television— that, "If these countries want to frolic in space on their own, that is their affair"—has been properly and rightly resented as a demonstration of hostility to the idea and principle of European co-operation on the frontiers of technology.
Does he not accept that his view is totally inconsistent with the Government's active encouragement to British companies to get involved in research for the star wars project, for which the technology and the final implementation is dubious and over which the Government have no control whatever? In this instance, he has turned down the opportunity to be involved in a technological development in which the Government would be actively involved and in which British companies would be guaranteed a stake in advance.
Apart from further damaging our relationships with our European partners with whom technological cooperation is vital, this decision will exclude many British companies from access to a vital market. Many of those companies are already investing substantial amounts of money. I understand that British companies have invested over £100 million in space technology. Therefore, the Government's suggestion that there is inadequate support from the private sector does not stand.
Does the Minister not acknowledge that, at the end of the day, the space programme and space technology will be developed in Europe and that British companies which have made that investment will be shut off from full participation and involvement in the spin-off? Is that not a disgraceful betrayal of securing Britain's role in the future development of some of the highest technologies that will be advanced in Europe?

Mr. Clarke: The comment to which the hon. Gentleman took exception arose out of my attempt at the end of the meeting to describe to lay journalists the difference between the mandatory programmes to which we are fully committed and in which we actively participate, the optional programmes in which we choose to take part — especially those programmes in telecommunications and Earth observation—and these new optional programmes related to this spaceship. I used a figure of speech that I took from a different legal connotation and described the French and one or two others as having gone off on a frolic of their own in exercising this option. As I said, they are paying for it and I wish them success, but we were not obliged to join it.
I do not understand the reference to star wars. No hon. Member has suggested that the Government should put


hundreds of millions of pounds into star wars. We are not doing that. We are aware that private companies in Britain are trying to win contracts. That is what private companies are doing in space. The relationship between the space programme and interested companies in Britain is very important. The Government are putting money into space not simply so that British companies should get the money from the contracts and profit from the work, although we are glad when that happens. The justification of the Government's contribution is that, in addition to the commercial profit, there is some general economic spin-off and benefit to the nation, through technological advancement or access to other markets in other parts of the world.
That has to be a judgment. The judgment of supporters of some parts of the ESA programme is quite uncritical. Those wider economic benefits are not available from participation in this rather ill-judged project.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I realise the importance of this statement. I will endeavour to call every right hon. and hon. Gentleman who wants to put a question to the Minister, but could I ask for brief questions, as we have a heavy day ahead of us.

Sir Ian Lloyd: I am sure that I would be doing my right hon. and learned Friend a disservice if I did not convey my disappointment and dismay at some of his recent announcements on this subject, having recently returned from the Johnson space flight centre at Houston and having seen something of the industrial, commercial and scientific significance of space.
Does he agree that there are essentially three major groupings in the world capable of taking technology further to the general benefit of all—the United States,the Soviet Union and western Europe? Is it not perfectly clear that none of the old great powers of western Europe, including Britain, can possibly do that on their own? Therefore, there is only one possible way in which it can be done, and that is by a united, effective western European effort—which this country should lead.

Mr. Clarke: We are party to such a united effort, and always have been, through the European Space Agency. It is important that we stay at the forefront of space science and reap the technological benefits it can bring to a wider range of industries. That has been and remains our object throughout.
We need international collaboration, but we have to collaborate with those who are taking the right route to those major benefits. My hon. Friend would be the first person with any knowledge of the subject with whom I have spoken who thinks that the Hermes spaceship is the right route. I thought it was wrong that France, as the dominant contributor to ESA, should determine that the central thrust of the organisation should be turned to getting a manned spaceship into space at the turn of the century.

Dr. John Marek: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that many Opposition. Members feel that it is a pity that the only words he can use are about industry—though that is necessary—and commercial return, and that words such as education,

research, knowledge and long-term progress seem unable to pass his lips? It does not matter how many highly misleading statistics and figures he gives — he gave us enough in his statement today—he will not get away from the fact that Britain is worse in space and scientific space research than any other developed country. What advice can he give to me, and to scientists in Britain who are deeply ashamed every time we meet scientists from abroad, of the policies of the Government and his philistine friends?

Mr. Clarke: Professor Bill Mitchell and I spent our entire time talking about science, industry and technology as well as the benefits that should come to European society from what we are doing. We also talked about devoting considerable sums of money but had to weigh up the advantages of spending it on other educational and scientific matters. We were being asked to pay £200 million a year into the project, which is nearly half as much again as total Government spending on medical research of all kinds in Britain.
We were arguing about science and, with respect to many of our critics, we are facing woolly stuff about the 21st century and the need to put a man into space, and general not quantified or clearly targeted talk about technological collaboration with our partners. We were keeping our eyes on the ball. By the time our partners have got three years further into this singularly ill-judged attempt to get a man into space, because the Americans did 30 years before, they will come back and start talking to us again.

Sir Trevor Skeet: Does my right hon. and learned Friend recognise that the formula that he is using of commercial use could be used against other important subscriptions to Europe — CERN in Switzerland and Grenoble in France? Does he not also recognise that the major industrial countries — West Germany, France and Italy—support Hermes and that flowing from all those contracts will be important orders going to manufacturers, and that we stand a chance of losing the lot?

Mr. Clarke: As my hon. Friend said, we engage in much international big science, and it is important that we do. Space research is merely one of several areas where international collaboration is necessary and essential. We will get nowhere on our own, and we all understand that. If my hon. Friend talked to those in the academic and scientific community, I think that he would find that they agree that international big science should still be well targeted and properly run and that it cannot be allowed to run away with too high a proportion of total budgets that are much in demand in other academic areas. I cannot remember my hon. Friend's second point about contracts.

Sir T. Skeet: We will lose orders from Europe that will naturally go to European countries and not to the United Kingdom.

Mr. Clarke: We will, but my hon. Friend should not forget that we were only being offered in Ariane about 3 per cent. of the total project. Ariane 5 is 45 per cent. French and they are insisting that 45 per cent. of the work goes to French companies. It was designed for French political purposes and no large participation was offered to us.

Mr. Ernie Ross: The Minister has rightly said that not many people disagree with his summation on Hermes. If we are to accept what the Minister has said today, he must answer a number of questions. He has to tell us what his alternative projects are. He has to identify those projects so that we can see exactly what our commitment will be to the European space initiative. He must also tell us how the reorganised British National Space Centre will operate. We have heard nothing about it today. At present, private industry is putting money into space research in the proportion of 3:1 How much more does he expect private industry to put in without knowing the extra support that he may or may not give it? He also has to make it clear that he is prepared to stand up and to fight for British industry. If he will fight for our industry, we need to know the various projects that he will fight for and give his support to.

Mr. Clarke: The alternatives are being looked at. The alternative that we think is required and that we were pressing is a launcher that is likely to be competitive in the 1990s, with the key role of launching satellites. There will be several such launchers in the world by the time Ariane 5 comes on stream. It is not wise to spend so much additional money on Ariane—in raising its payload and its safety levels to carry man—to put a spaceship into orbit, because other rockets will be designed more cost-effectively to put launchers up. Our great strength is in satellites and telecommunications. We are interested in cost-effective launchers and not one designed for political purposes.
I have discussed the data relay satellite, which is extremely important and an area in which we hope to go forward. We are still having discussions on Hotol. We are to have discussions with the industry, and if out of those discussions come some well-judged projects which, if they are justified, offer value for money across all the criteria we have to apply to space projects, we will consider backing them.

Mr. Kenneth Warren: Has my right hon. and learned Friend sensed the fear that is abroad in industry and commerce that we are standing on the threshold of a vast commercial breakthrough in the use of space transportation and that the Government are afraid to cross that threshold? I think it would be most helpful if he could reassure the House and the country that he understands the dimensions of those opportunities and will visit the space facilities to see what we can do. Lastly, would he please tell the House, and reassure me, that it is not a philosophy of how little we need to spend but how much we must spend that should guide him?

Mr. Clarke: I think that we have rather a good position in some areas of space at the moment, particularly as users of space facilities, telecommunications and satellites, and in some aspects of Earth observation. When we look at the polar platform, we will be looking at its value for Earth observation and what we might derive from that. I do not believe that someone with my hon. Friend's knowledge of the industry would disagree with my proposition that we must not be drawn into purely political choices of objectives. Having a spaceship with one's flag on is a political objective that is in danger of distorting the whole European space effort.

Mr. Rhodri Morgan: In advising the House that the Hotol project did not have a cat in hell's chance of being

adopted, is the right hon. and learned Gentleman confirming that the British Government were not going to propose it and that therefore the private promoters of Hotol have to wait for the Dutch or Portuguese Governments to propose British projects at ESA meetings?

Mr. Clarke: My right hon. Friend the Member for Chertsey and Walton (Sir G. Pattie) raised it at the Rome meeting. Everyone in ESA knows about Hotol, but there is no interest in taking it on. It is not meant to be a criticism of my French colleagues, with whom I get on very well, but at the moment it is perceived by the French and the Germans as a competitor, and they do not want Hotol to go forward. [Interruption.] We have to consider with our own industry how to proceed, and it is not through the route of ESA at The Hague. I have encouraged British Aerospace to have discussions with the Germans and the Japanese, whose industries are interested. We will have further discussions but, as every hon. Member has urged upon me, there is no point in going it alone on a project like Hotol. If the European Space Agency is not a collaborator, there is no point in my throwing money down the drain into ESA on the Hermes project, which is a competitor. I have to continue the exploration for other international collaborators who might be interested in taking Hotol further.

Mr. Robert Rhodes James: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that the Government have got this totally wrong? Is he prepared to accept—I am not—that our nation will become a division 3 country, and that research and development in space will be relegated in the way that he has suggested? If that is the course that he will pursue, my constituents and I will not.

Mr. Clarke: With great respect to my hon. Friend, who is an old friend and colleague of mine, he is making the widest possible assertions based on the glossier public relations that surrounds the space industry—that this is somehow the future and the forefront of science. It could be, and parts of it are, and it is those bits on which we will collaborate. However, I remind my hon. Friend that the sum of money that we were being asked to contribute is a third of the total amount of all the research councils' funding of research of all kinds in all our universities and polytechnics. The amount represented the entire bill for school textbooks for England and Wales in every secondary school, or more than half as much again than what we are spending on medical research.
My hon. Friend, who is deeply concerned about science, ought to take note of the opinion of those in the Science and Engineering Research Council. That council said that it was quite unjustified to go into research on that scale, to the obvious detriment of the claims of the rest of the scientific and academic community.

Mr. Michael Grylls: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that many people in private industry who pay taxes and are therefore concerned how taxpayers' money is spent will welcome his insistence on value for money and agree that just throwing money at space is not the right way? What I believe he is saying is that expenditure and effort should be targeted in the direction where it is most likely to be successful. That is a hard-headed, not a hard-hearted, approach, which I believe will appeal to those industries that will have to pay the bill.

Mr. Clarke: Yes, we were dealing with the optional programmes, where there are choices to be made. We have opted to play a full part in user programmes, those concerned with telecommunications, which is probably the most dramatic area of all, and Earth observation. We wanted the users and industry to be more closely associated with the planning than they are. The ESA is another great governmental agency that is driven by Governments and the officials of the agency, and it does not have close enough contact with industry and users. Users includes the scientific community. That is what we are arguing for.
I still think that the ESA will have to come back to that eventually because the Germans, as an hon. Member mentioned earlier, have got themselves in the curious position of backing Hermes but saying that it should cost 20 per cent. less. I cannot imagine how they will get on with that. In my opinion, the estimated cost of Hermes is a gross under-estimate. Before they get the spaceship in the air, it will cost far more than they are talking about at the moment.
If the Germans think that they can go on without us and spend less money than they are being asked for at the moment, the German Government are in for a big surprise.

Mr. Roger Sims: Does my right hon. and learned Friend accept the clout that Britain carries in this sphere and that the extent to which British companies can play their part in space projects depends inevitably on the extent to which we are willing to make cash contributions towards their costs? Does he also agree that space technology involves not only the big companies but some 300 small companies, such as SIRA in my constituency, which are all doing a variety of work in space technology which has enormous potential in many areas apart from space? Does he agree that this work will be endangered and will not be able to continue unless we continue to play a realistic part in the European Space Agency programme? Will he take that into account?

Mr. Clarke: I will and do take that into account. Obviously I spend most of my time encouraging companies to fight for contracts. Among the reactions to the present news is the disappointment of the companies that expected contracts if we had gone into Ariane, Hermes and so on. We will have to to have more discussions with the industry and continue to explore ways for further international collaboration. Meanwhile, we are not cutting back on what we are doing. We remain heavily engaged in space industry of all kinds.

Mr. Richard Page: Although I understand the call to get industry more closely involved, can my right hon. and learned Friend say how we can ask companies to make long-term commercial judgments, bearing in mind their responsibilities to their shareholders, in areas that are by their very nature exploratory, where the benefits will be long-term and where those benefits might necessarily be unprotected? Other companies and countries within the ESA range are not asked to make such a contribution. Is it fair that we should do so? Bearing in mind that Columbus discovered America on state aid, should we not do the same?

Mr. Clarke: Columbus was not taking part in an international project so he probably had fewer problems

at the planning stage. What we are asking is fair in certain parts of the space programme. People tend to go on about space without defining clearly what objectives they are after. There is a mixture. Some is pure scientific research, research and inquiry. Some is to try to get spin-off from technological advances that might be applicable in other areas. Some is for pure commercial return. It can be extremely profitable to go into large sections of the satellite and communications data relay business. When satellite development has obvious commercial benefits, it is right to expect commercial contributions.
Technological spin-off is more difficult because it is difficult to get clear figures. Most researchers tend to be full of enthusiasm about potential technological spin-off but are not always clear about what it is. In pure science, we have to weigh up the claims on the budget with the claims of other areas. Pure research in space has seen a bigger increase in real terms in the last three years than any other area of pure science in this country. It is the combination of those things that one has to apply. That is what we are doing. I do not think that what was on offer at The Hague passed any of those tests satisfactorily.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. May I again ask for brief questions, please?

Mr. Michael Stern: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that the ESA subscription is far from being the be-all and end-all of the Government's involvement in space research? Does he agree that the firm control which he is rightly exercising over that subscription creates room for worthwhile bilateral projects, such as Radarsat in Canada, which will themselves give British industry a greater depth of experience towards the ESA programmes like Columbus and the polar platform?

Mr. Clarke: I do. My hon. Friend is right; we have a national space programme as well. We are heavily committed to keeping in the forefront of space exploration and research and industrial applications. At The Hague meeting, a Canadian observer was pressing on me again, as the Canadian Minister had already done, the prospects of collaborating in Radarsat into which the Canadian Government are prepared to put a large amount of money and in which it wants British participation. There are endless projects of that kind but I ask the House to accept that we must choose. The bulk of British industry will probably agree that our choice at The Hague not to go into Hermes was correct. We should all get together now and find better alternatives.

Mr. Timothy Wood: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that some of us are sceptical of the value of certain French-inspired space projects? Is he also aware that it is vital for the British space technology industry that we have a positive lead from the Government on the approach that should be taken by this country in space activities?

Mr. Clarke: As I say, we will have continuing discussions with the industry. I hope we can respond to my hon. Friend's challenge.

Mr. Rob Hayward: Is it not the case that the development of the air-breathing engine for Hotol is progressing? Can my right hon. and learned Friend assure


the House that, if that development comes to fruition in the near future, he would be in a position to put Hotol on the agenda at the ESA with the backing of some money?

Mr. Clarke: Work is progressing on the unique propulsion system of Hotol because the Government have been helping to finance it. That is how we have got to where we are on Hotol. The next stage will be more expensive, because it is enlarging the investigations. I think that we agree with the companies involved that we need international collaborators. If the ESA would collaborate on Hotol, we would have discussions with it. Meanwhile, we have to explore the position with others.
I expressed strong scepticism a moment ago about whether the European Space Agency would take Hotol on board. Apart from anything else, it has spent miles over the limit already — [Interruption.] I do not think the hon. Gentleman understands. The hon. Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Ross), who understands these things very well, knows that the French will not put money into Hotol because they see it as a competitor to Ariane and to Hermes. The Opposition are urging me to put money into the principal competitor of Hotol, which is what we were being asked to do at The Hague meeting earlier this week.

Mr. Phillip Oppenheim: My right hon. and learned Friend is obviously aware that space is currently the fashionable area for public expenditure. I am sure that he will bear in mind also that every pound that we commit to speculative space projects is a pound less for other parts of industry, particularly the rest of the aerospace industry, in which we recently overtook French production and exports. Will he therefore bear in mind the fact that there are many demands on public expenditure and that we should not wade head first into unsatisfactory projects just because they are in a fashionable area?

Mr. Clarke: I agree. I also agree with my hon. Friend's point about the importance of committing ourselves to the British aerospace industry. We are heavily committed to Airbus, where we are working with the French, the Germans and the Spanish to ensure that Europe retains its own capacity to make large civil airliners. We are close together in discussions with the Americans to make sure that that is not thwarted. We are interested in a European fighter aircraft. I find that a very attractive suggestion. We are working on that with the Germans and the Italians. I regret that the French are inclined to go it alone and not join in on the European fighter aircraft.
If that aircraft does not go forward, we will have to look to the American industry to provide the bulk of all military aircraft for Europe. Those are areas where we are collaborating. Before we get too excited about what happened this week, it just happens that we do not agree with our French and German friends on this occasion that a spaceship should be added to the list of our other commitments to the aerospace industry or to the scientific community.

Mr. Michael Colvin: My right hon. and learned Friend should be aware that the free enterprise culture which has done so much to restore our

economy does not yet apply to the business of space. With a Government lead it will, if it does not do so yet. He is aware that over 300 companies and most of our universities and research establishments are involved in space. In order to ensure that there is maximum effort in the right place, and no duplication of effort, will he please, under the auspices of his Department, arrange for proper co-ordination? If that co-ordination requires additional resources, can he assure us that those resources will be forthcoming?

Mr. Clarke: There are parts of the space effort with great commercial returns. There is private sector investment already in this country. There is a lot of private sector investment in America. There are areas where returns can be won. In other areas, the return is longer-term and Governments need to fund it. Frankly, other areas are not worth it because the commercial returns are nil and the scientific aims are illusory. We have to make a choice between them. Certainly we will have discussions with companies and others to try to co-ordinate our effort and make sensible choices.

Mr. Frank Cook: Will the Minister confirm that, had the decision this week been different, it would have meant more work for British industry and British institutes of technology? I apologise for having had to leave the Chamber on urgent business in the middle of questions on the statement. Will the Minister explain how he would square that with the hapless and hopeless readiness of the Government to agree immediately to contribute towards President Reagan's SDI programme, and to scuttle around Europe trying to persuade our European partners to do likewise? Is the Minister not leaning greatly towards American projects rather than to those which we share with our European partners?

Mr. Clarke: I have already referred to star wars. We are encouraging British companies to look for contracts there, but the programme will be paid for by the Americans, so that is a false analogy. My attitudes this week were not in any way governed by pro-American, anti-European feelings. I am an extremely enthusiastic supporter of closer European co-operation in this and many other respects. It was simply a difference of opinion about whether these were the correct optional programmes.
The hon. Gentleman asked what would have happened if I had agreed earlier this week. I suspect that the next time that he had a claim to make on behalf of Stockton, his region or shipbuilding, and I had started pleading difficulties with resources, he would have pointed out how cheerily I had just agreed to put £120 million a year into a spaceship programme because the Europeans were demanding it. I am not sure whether I would have won either way with some hon. Members.

Mr. Robert Hayward: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Tony Marlow: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: No, I will take first the matter raised under Standing Order No. 20.

Nursing Staff (Intensive Care)

Mr. Mark Fisher: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 20, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,
the shortage of specialist nursing staff in intensive care units in west Midlands hospitals, affecting infants needing heart surgery".
This matter is specific because a north Staffordshire baby, David Barber, 34 days old and suffering from a hole in the heart and a missing valve, has now had his heart operation cancelled five times. The excellent Birmingham children's hospital has operating theatres available. It has surgeons who are ready and anxious to perform the operation. It has beds in the intensive care unit, but it cannot make use of those beds which lie empty because it has not the specialist nursing staff to service those beds.
This matter is important because it concerns not only the misery and anxiety which must face David Barber's family, but also the terrible choices facing hospital staff in deciding on which babies to operate. Above all, it concerns the crisis of nurse shortages which are facing the National Health Service after eight years of Government cuts and neglect. We know that 30,000 nurses leave the National Health Service every year because of a combination of low pay, poor conditions and very inflexible hours, and the Government are doing little or nothing about it.
This matter is urgent because, unless David Barber and other babies like him get the surgery which they so desperately need, his and their condition will inevitably deteriorate. Hon. Members on both sides of the House and members of the public will be appalled that the Government have allowed the National Health Service to decline to the point at which infants needing heart surgery are denied treatment. For that reason, I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher) asks leave to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that he thinks should have urgent consideration, namely,
the shortage of specialist nursing staff in intensive care units in west Midlands hospitals, affecting infants needing heart surgery".
I have listened with the greatest care and concern to what the hon. Gentleman has said and I also listened to him earlier this morning on the radio. I regret that I cannot find that this matter should take precedence over the Orders for today, but I hope that he may have other opportunities of raising it.

Points of Order

Mr. Robert Hayward: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Tony Marlow: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: I have been notified of a point of order from the Opposition Front Bench.

Mr. Donald Dewar: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I understand that, earlier this afternoon, the hon. Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) made some gratuitously offensive allegations about some of my hon. Friends. At this stage, it is not appropriate for me, or for any hon. Members, to debate the issues raised in the recent television programme in Scotland. I do not want to follow the hon. Member for Tayside, North in his reckless course of conduct in that respect.
It should be put on record that no specific allegations were made about hon. Members in the programme. The procurator fiscal, who has the proper responsibility for these matters, has been asked to investigate any matters that may arise from the programme. Indeed, he was asked to do so some weeks ago by members of the Dundee Labour party and by my hon. Friends who were referred to in the outburst made by the hon. Member for Tayside, North.
I rise to make this point because I hope that you, Mr. Speaker, will advise the House, as I am sure that you would want to, that it would be better in these circumstances if hon. Members—even the hon. Member for Tayside, North — showed a proper and decent restraint and were not tempted into making irresponsible speculation and provocative suggestions which can only complicate the task of those who are properly looking into the issues that have been raised. Such behaviour reflects no credit on the House or on any hon. Member responsible for such opportunism.

Mr. Speaker: I accept what the hon. Member has said about the matter. I hope that we can conduct the affairs of this House on the basis of mutual respect and mutual honour. I trust that we will not have allegations of that kind made across the Floor of the Chamber.

The Lord Privy Seal and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Wakeham): There was a suggestion earlier that there was a planted question on this point. I owe it to the House to explain the position, and I can do that perfectly easily. The position is that any hon. Member who tables an early-day motion in the House is entitled to expect the Government to consider it and that, when the Leader of the House comes to the House for business questions, he should come with an answer to that early-day motion. My hon. Friend the Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) raised a question specifically on early-day motion 281. The hon. Member for Halifax (Mrs. Mahon) raised a question on early-day motion 282 and the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) raised a question about early-day motion 214. I came prepared with answers to all early-day motions on the Order Paper and naturally I try to help the House. To do less would be a discourtesy.

Mr. Speaker: I hope that the House will leave it at that.

Mr. Dewar: rose—

Mr. Speaker: I think that we have exhausted that matter.

Mr. Marlow: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You will be well aware that "Erskine May", on page 254, states
The efficient and smooth running of the parliamentary machine depends largely on the Whips"—
that is, Whips from both sides of the House. Page 445 states that, when an hon. Member persists in disorderly conduct, Mr. Speaker is "enjoined" under Standing Orders 42 and 43 to take action. "Enjoined" means basically that you. Mr. Speaker, are required to take action. Earlier this afternoon circumstances arose with regard to the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) as a result of which there was a vote, quite properly. That vote, I submit to you Mr. Speaker—I do not submit it, it is so obvious—was about your authority, the rules of order of the House and the provisions of "Erskine May". I am happy to say that—

Mr. Speaker: Unfortunately, I had to take an unpleasant decision. What is the point of order for me?

Mr. Marlow: The point of order is that I am pleased to say that the Opposition Chief Whip, the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Foster) supported you, Mr. Speaker. However, the Opposition Whips, the hon. Members for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mrs. Golding) and Barnsley, West and Penistone (Mr. McKay)—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I think that this is going down an unhelpful track. [Interruption.] Well, do not let us stir it up. I hope that both sides of the House will always support Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Marlow: I am seeking to help.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman has said enough for me to know that I am not anxious to hear any more.

Mr. Marlow: rose—

Mr. David Winnick: On a helpful point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: I am most grateful, but I think that we should get on.

Mr. Bob Cryer: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I was one of the tellers in the vote earlier on the naming of my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell). The first person through the Aye lobby was the Prime Minister. If the complaint by my hon. Friend had been upheld, the Prime Minister might have had to relinquish the Prime Minister's job. As she would thereby lose money, she had some direct pecuniary interest.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Kenneth Hind: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Is it on a totally different matter?

Mr. Hind: It is a matter of great importance.

Mr. Speaker: They are all matters of great importance, but is it a point of order?

Mr. Hind: This is a point of order on which you can rule, Mr. Speaker. I seek your guidance over the matter,

which is now outstanding, of how to deal with the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell). About 15 minutes after you ordered the hon. Member for Linlithgow from the Chamber I was walking from this building to Norman Shaw and I saw the hon. Gentleman with a television camera crew. It is clear that what happened during the business statement was set up for the purpose of cheap publicity on the hon. Gentleman's part.
I seek your guidance, Mr. Speaker, on this point. 'Will you take into consideration in the sentence that is imposed upon the hon. Member for Linlithgow — [HON. MEMBERS: "Sentence?"] Whether he is banned for one day or seven days, that should be regarded as a sentence. It is a disgrace, and let no one forget that.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I do not think that I need any more help on this matter. I advise the hon. Gentleman that it is neither one day nor seven days. If he looks in "Erskine May" he will find that it is five days. I received a report from the Serjeant at Arms that the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) had in fact left the precincts of the Palace of Westminster.

Mr. Hayward: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Is it a different point of order?

Mr. Hayward: I wish to make a suggestion.

Mr. Speaker: Order. That is not a point of order. I cannot rule on suggestions. That would leave our proceedings wide open.

Mr. Hayward: The events of this week have unfortunately shown this House, both inside and out, in some of its worst moments. We can put some of that down to extreme exhaustion. However, many hon. Members regret that there has not been obvious support for the Chair from all sides of the House.

Mr. Speaker: We dealt with this matter yesterday and I have said today that I believe that what happened yesterday did not show the House in a good light. I hope very much that I shall have the co-operation of the House in ensuring that that kind of thing never happens again.

BILLS PRESENTED

WELSH DEVELOPMENT AGENCY

Mr. Secretary Walker, supported by Mr. Secretary Ridley, Mr. John Major, Mr. Wyn Roberts and Mr. Ian Grist, presented a Bill to increase the financial limit which applies by virtue of section 18 of the Welsh Development Agency Act 1975 to the general external borrowing of the Agency and certain other amounts: And the same was read the First time ; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow and to be printed. [Bill 52.]

SCOTLAND

Mr. Donald Dewar, supported by Mr. Dick Douglas, Mr. David Marshall, Mr. John Home Robertson, Mr. John Maxton, Mr. Norman Hogg, Mr. Allen Adams, Mr. Bruce Milian, Mr. John Smith, Mr. Gordon Brown, Mr. Dennis Canavan and Mr. Sam Galbraith, presented a Bill to provide for the establishment of a Scottish Assembly and Executive and for their functions and powers ; to make provision regarding finance; and to make consequential provision: And the same was read the First time ; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 5 February and to be printed. [Bill 50.]

Social Security Benefits

Mr. Speaker: We now come to the debate on the three social security instruments. I remind the House that, pursuant to the order of the House on 6 November, they are all to be taken together.

The Minister for Social Security and the Disabled (Mr. Nicholas Scott): I beg to move:
That the draft Social Security Benefits Up-rating (No. 2) Order 1987, which was laid before this House on 3rd November, be approved.
As you have said, Mr. Speaker, with this we are to take the following:
That the draft Income Support (General) Regulations 1987, which were laid before this House on 10th November, be approved.
That the draft Social Security (Claims and Payments) Regulations 1987, which were laid before this House on 10th November, be approved.
The motions enable us to debate today three main items —the Income Support (General) Regulations 1987, the Social Security (Claims and Payments) Regulations 1987 and the Social Security Benefits Up-Rating (No. 2) Order 1987, which implements the up-rating announcement that was made by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State on 27 October. The first of the instruments sets out the detailed provisions for the new income support scheme, the basis for a more coherent and aligned structure for income-related benefits. The second set covers the rules across the range of social security benefits for claiming and paying state support. The third covers the general increase of social security benefits from next April. All are important. Since about 70 per cent. of the population of this country live in families who are in receipt of some income from benefit, the importance is underlined. Certainly, they fully justify the time that the House intends to spend debating them today. Indeed, I hope that the House will understand if I set out not in detail or chapter by chapter the coverage of the regulations, but at least the background to each of the sets in some detail.
The House will have noticed that the income support and claims and payments regulations contain two minor changes—in regulations Nos. 15 and 48 respectively— from the versions that were originally made on 3 November. The changes were required to meet legal questions that were raised prior to consideration of the regulations by the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments. The House will understand and appreciate that we moved quickly to clarify the areas of doubt in response to the concerns expressed and to re-lay the regulations to avoid any delay in the House's consideration of them.
The regulations are the outcome of the most significant changes in the patterns of income-related benefits that we have had since the end of the second world war. They follow a review that began in 1984 with consultation and oral hearings and proceeded through the publication of a Green Paper and further consultation in 1985. A White Paper followed later that year, and there were many hours of consideration in Parliament during the passage of the Social Security Act 1986. Since then, work has continued on implementation and especially on the detailed regulations that were made available on a wide basis in draft form in July this year.
The regulations bring together the main provisions of the new scheme in one set. They replace four complete sets


of regulations in the present scheme and parts of three others. The regulations are clearly laid out, with separate sections covering different parts of the scheme. We have produced—I hope that the House will find it useful—a detailed memorandum explaining the provisions. In view of that, I do not propose to provide a chapter-by-chapter description of the provisions. Hon. Members will have been able to read the details for themselves. Instead, I shall highlight particular points in the regulations in relation to the objectives for reform that we set for ourselves in the Green Paper.
In that document, we set out the aims of the reform. They were to produce a system that is easier for claimants to understand, to improve operational effectiveness to enable a better service for claimants, to target resources on those facing the greatest pressures, to encourage self-reliance, to ensure fairness between the position of people on benefit and others on low incomes, and to achieve greater alignment with other income-related benefits. All objectives are reflected in the regulations before the House.

Mr. Tony Marlow: My hon. Friend will note that the one provision that gives rise to a great deal of disquiet on this side is the decision in real terms to lower child benefit. Inflation goes up but child benefit stays the same. My hon. Friend will know also that it is the intention of our right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer to reduce taxation later this year. What the Government are doing — I hope not with forethought — is taking money from families with children and giving money to those families or individuals who do not have children. We are taking money from families and giving it to the dinkies: down the kids and up the dinkies. With double income and no children, one gets more money. If one has one income and several dependants, one gets less money. As a member of the party that believes in the family, can my hon. Friend give us some reassurance that the Government have taken note of the policy and intend to do something about that element of the tax-paying public—that family element of the tax-paying public—which is becoming worse off under this manoeuvre?

Mr. Scott: I am interested to learn that my hon. Friend perhaps has greater insight and greater information about the intentions of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer than have even some Members in the Administration. Apart from that, if my hon. Friend can control himself for a little longer, before I come to the end of my remarks I shall deal specifically with the decision of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State not to uprate child benefit. I know that the matter is important to all hon. Members, and I shall deal with it in due course.
The first two objectives that I outlined before I gave way to my hon. Friend provide a system that is easier for claimants to understand and for staff to administer. Those two things are linked. There can be no doubt at all to anybody who has anything to do with the operation of the system of supplementary benefit that the scheme is cumbersome and confusing. The difficulties are a barrier to claimants understanding their entitlement, to those who advise them and to the staff of the Department of Health and Social Security whose duty it is to administer the rules. The system has developed piecemeal over the years— like Topsy, it has just growed. New provisions have been

bolted on to the original structure, until the central purpose of the supplementary benefit scheme, which is a guarantee of a weekly income for claimants with the minimum of fuss and the maximum of efficiency, has been lost in the complexities.
It has often been said in the past that there are about 16,000 separate regulations governing supplementary benefit. That is not exactly true ; there are some gaps in the numbering. Certainly, when we get to the end of the instructions we get to the 16,000 mark. That in itself is a measure of the complexity and scale of the rules and regulations that have developed over the years. We should be concerned to simplify and clarify the provisions in any scheme that replaces supplementary benefit.
At the moment, the supplementary benefit scheme bases the amount of help given for normal living expenses on age, family circumstances, household status, length of time on benefit and potential entitlement to over 20 weekly extra payments. Because the permutations are virtually endless, there can rarely be a simple answer to the apparently straightforward question, "What am I entitled to?" All the evidence is that many claimants have little understanding of how their benefit is worked out. That lack of certainty must also serve as a barrier to take-up —no doubt we shall hear something about that matter this afternoon—by those, particularly pensioners, who could get help if they applied.
Under the new scheme, support for living expenses will be based on age, family circumstances, and the group to which the claimant belongs. That will usually be decided on the basis of routinely collected information — for example, receipt of other benefits. That is covered in part IV of the regulations and the associated schedules. Therefore, it will be far easier to explain to, say, a single pensioner or an unemployed couple with young children what level of support is provided for their living expenses. For staff, too, it will mean that decisions will be simpler and more straightforward.
The assessment of most claimants' needs will be simpler than it is now. I recognise that, of course, by definition, in an income-related scheme, there will have to be detailed rules regarding the treatment of income. If it is possible for a claimant to have a particular source of income, however rare, the rules must do their best to provide for it.
Also, in part V and the associated schedule, we have tried to do two main things in regard to resources. We have achieved some worthwhile simplification of the rules. For example, at present there is a special disregard of the first £1,500 of the surrender value of life insurance policies. That means that claimants and life insurance companies can be put to the bother and difficulty of working out the value to see whether it affects a claimant's entitlement to benefit. In the new scheme, such surrender values have been totally ignored when assessing benefit. Again, under the present system, if a local education authority makes a discretionary maintenance allowance for somebody staying on at school, there is a limit to the amount that can be ignored or disregarded—£7·50 for a school and £9·50 for a further education college. From April. all such payments will be disregarded without limit.
In future, payments in kind will be ignored. All the measures represent improvements for claimants and a reduction in the complexity of workload for staff.

Mr. Frank Field: One of the objectives that the hon. Gentleman hopes that the new scheme will


achieve is that it will give simple answers to possibly complicated questions. I ask one simple question, to which I should like a simple answer. Under the new scheme, will payments be made in advance or in arrears? It is unclear from the regulations.

Mr. Scott: I shall refer to the way in which we shall seek to align payments so that claimants will not have some benefits paid in advance and some paid in arrears. I shall outline in detail how those systems will be aligned.

Mr. John Fraser: Many of my constituents are concerned about housing costs. In Brixton, where the crime rate is regrettably very high, it is the understanding of people who manage homes that are being adapted for the elderly that the cost of door entry phones and burglar alarms will be disallowed from housing costs if they are not purpose-built. They cannot understand why, if we want to protect the elderly and disabled from crime, these security measures should be disallowed. Will the Minister comment on that?

Mr. Scott: Subject to business arrangements, next week we shall discuss housing benefit regulations. The hon. Gentleman is saying that, under the housing benefit regulations, alarm systems that have not been purpose-built—thus, the charges are not an integral part of a payment to the individual for housing — should be provided under the housing benefit system or perhaps by local authorities through personal social services. I am sure that we shall discuss this matter in detail in the debate next week.

Mrs. Alice Mahon: I accept that there are complications with some benefits, but when the social fund is introduced will the Minister draw up a list of what people can claim?

Mr. Scott: I shall cover that matter next week, in particular the efforts that we shall be making to explain in clear detail how the new system will operate next April. Perhaps when I arrive at that part of my speech, the hon. Lady will ask me any questions that arise.
The second objective of the regulations is to provide greater clarity of difinition in other circumstances. The regulations on students' income, earnings from self-employment and attribution of income now incorporate matters that were previously included in guidance. More of the detail has been put on the face of the law. It will be of benefit to staff and claimants' expert advisers to have more of the detail brought together in the regulations.
Those changes will make it easier for advisers and hon. Members, who have a heavy case load in this regard, to explain the new scheme to claimants or potential claimants. Over the past few years we have made significant improvements — I am here addressing the point that was made by the hon. Member for Halifax— in the standard of our leaflets and other publicity material. An important objective of the reforms is to develop further this better information to claimants and their advisers. As part of the communications strategy, we are revising all the leaflets and claim forms for income support.
The information will be on a number of different levels. There will continue to be general leaflets explaining the broad outlines of the scheme for specific groups of claimants. In particular, during the reassessment of cases

from November, all claimants will receive a leaflet explaining how their new entitlement is worked out. That will address the point that was was raised by the hon. Member for Halifax. We are revising the claim form so that it will include more explanation of the rules for claimants and will be laid out in an uncluttered and I hope less intimidatory format. It is intended to reduce the need for follow-up questions, which delay benefit awards.
Finally, we shall produce a full guide to the main rules of the scheme. This will replace the old supplementary benefit handbook, with which many hon. Members will be familiar. It will cover much the same ground but it will be free and freely available to those who advise claimants. We believe that the freely available new guide will prove a valuable document for claimants who wish to find out more detail of the benefit rules and will be of considerable help to various individuals and organisations advising them.

Mr. Richard Holt: Most of the problems in this regard concern not the initial assessment but the subsequent appeal. Will my hon. Friend say something about the appeal mechanism, which currently is cumbersome and slow? Do the Government intend to revise that system, paperwise or mechanically, so that people who have been refused benefit in the first instance can obtain simplified information, such as that which is available to first-time claimants?

Mr. Scott: I hope that the simple application of the scheme in moving from supplementary benefit to income support will improve not only the original adjudication but the subsequent appeal. I am conscious of my hon. Friend's point and I shall address it in the changeover next April. The change-over itself should be of considerable help in that regard.
These measures are part of a dual strategy to make the system easier and to improve communications with those whom we are seeking to help. It is not realistic to argue on the one hand for improved publicity, a better service, a simplified system and further progress on take-up, yet on the other for the retention of every dot and comma of what most people would agree is an extremely complex scheme. Better communications, an improved service and changes to simplify the rules go together.

Mrs. Mahon: The Minister has not answered my original question. The social fund will be operated through the discretionary powers of a social security officer. I admit that, currently, benefits are complicated, but will there be a list of benefits that people know they have a right to, or will it be discretionary? If it is discretionary, one part of the country will receive different treatment from another. Will the information in the leaflets be specific about the matters that are basic and important to people on low incomes?

Mr. Scott: As the hon. Lady knows, elements of the social security system are regulatory, but provision is made in them for the discretionary loans system. We shall ensure that any publicity—leaflets and so on—will make clear the different aspects of the fund. There will be regulations covering the operation of the social fund, which will be subject to the negative procedure. I have no doubt that the Opposition Front Bench will seek to debate these matters in due course; I should be very surprised if they did not seize that opportunity.
Under the new scheme the main way that extra resources will be targeted on claimants with particular needs—this is another of the aims that I mentioned—is the system of premiums. The detailed structure and amounts are detailed in schedule 2. Extra help will be given to parents, lone parents, disabled people and, for the first time, from day one on benefit, to all families with children. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has recently announced the proposed rates for next April and published a revised illustration of the impact of change. I am sure that the House does not expect me to repeat the changes that were announced in his statement.
Our plan is to spend more, not less, on income support than if supplementary benefit had continued and been uprated in line with inflation. There are particular improvements for families with children and those who are receiving the disability premium. The published illustration implies extra resources in real terms compared to the present scheme for those groups of over £100 million for families and over £60 million for people receiving the disability premium.

Mr. Frank Field: The Minister said that the Government will spend more money, but will he give some information that I have tried, but failed to obtain in parliamentary questions? Is he saying that the proposed scheme will involve spending more money that if the supplementary benefit system had been uprated, taking into account the fact that the number of claimants is rising year by year and that the new scheme will have to cover 20 per cent. of the rates? Taking into account those factors, is he saying that claimants will be better off under this scheme?

Mr. Scott: Taking into account the £200 million that we will be putting into transitional protection, we shall expect to spend more on weekly support for income support claimants than we would have spent had we uprated the supplementary benefits weekly payments in line with inflation, which would have been our alternative to introducing the new system. The answer to the hon. Gentleman's question is yes.

Mr. Field: I am not sure what the Minister is saying yes to.

Mr. Scott: As I said, in 1988–89 more money will go into income support than would have gone into supplementary benefit uprated in line with inflation for the year 1988–89.

Mr. Field: With respect, that is not the question that I asked. I asked whether the sum would be more taking into account the facts that supplementary benefits would be increased, that during the year there would be more claimants and that the calculation must exclude the 20 per cent. on rates. That was my question, and not the more simple question to which he answered yes.

Mr. Scott: If I have understood the hon. Gentleman's question, the answer is still yes. However, we can pursue the matter in correspondence if the hon. Gentleman has detailed points to raise. My assessment is still that more resources will be going into income support next year.

Mrs. Margaret Beckett: It would help the House to have clarification of the Minister's remarks. If I understand him correctly, he is saying that, taking into account the increased number of claimants and the fact

that people will have to pay 20 per cent. of their rate bills, there will still be more money because of the money that is being put into transitional protection.

Mr. Scott: The transitional arrangements account for part of the resources that we shall be putting into income support next year. On the number of claimants, it is worth making the point that we are already experiencing a fall in the number of those claiming unemployment benefit, and we hope that that will continue. In spite of that, I believe that extra resources will be going into the system of income support for the coming financial year.
Let me remind the House of what I was saying; in a sense it follows on from the interventions. Much of the discussion about the effects of the transition to income support — perhaps the Government have played some part in this — has centred round breaking down claimants into gainers and losers. Some may have gained the impression that, when the new arrangements are introduced on 1 April next year, individual claimants will lose in cash terms. That is completely misleading. Wherever hon. Members stand on the merits or otherwise of the change from supplementary benefit to income support, they—and, indeed, all those concerned with the matter—should be at pains to remove the doubts and uncertainties that some existing claimants still feel.
Existing claimants who need it will have the cash value of their benefit maintained. That should be made clear. Ratepayers will also be guaranteed—

Mr. Robin Cook: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Scott: I shall certainly give way to the hon. Gentleman when I have finished making this point.
Ratepayers will also be guaranteed cash in hand to meet the average value of the contribution to rates that they will be expected to make from next April. It is an inescapable fact that any significant reform on any realistic resource assumption must have different effects on different claimants' entitlement. I have described the structural change that we shall be making next April, but I emphasise once again that the transitional protection that we will give will be a major cushion to change for existing claimants.

Mr. Cook: The Minister will admit that those who have a cash benefit that exceeds their entitlement will get no increase next year. The 750,000 claimants whose cash benefit exceeds the entitlement by £5 a week are likely to get no increase in 1989 either. Moreover, if a claimant succeeds in re-entering the labour market but finds himself unemployed again at some stage next year, he will then receive less benefit than he received before he went back to work. How on earth can the Minister reconcile that with the known instinct of his Government to provide incentives for people to go back to work?

Mr. Scott: We are moving to a new system. If one moves from a system that has tended to concentrate on a complex process of deciding benefits against the background of thousands of regulations governing precise individual needs to a system that provides a basic personal allowance and premiums targeted on groups of people rather than on individuals, there is bound to be an unevenness of impact. New claimants will know the position and, as I said, extra resources will be put in overall. By the transitional protection arrangements we shall ensure that no existing claimants lose in cash terms.
As the schemes develop, hon. Members will have an opportunity if necessary to raise in the House the justice or otherwise of claimants who were receiving benefit before April 1988 being compensated in some way for inflation in future. That matter will have to be discussed on the Floor of the House. No doubt it will be discussed in terms of the way in which Governments allocate their resources from year to year. However, the Government should be given credit for providing comprehensive transitional protection for existing claimants as we move to a new system, which will be simpler and easier to understand and which, once bedded down, will be recognised as a great improvement on the existing complex system of supplementary benefits.

Mr. Frank Field: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Scott: I almost feel as though other hon. Members are getting more of an opportunity to speak than I am. I give way to the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Field: My point relates to the transitional arrangements. Has the Minister had a chance to examine the statement in which his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced the proposals to the House? I understood the hon. Gentleman to say in reply to one of his hon. Friends that whereas some people would be caught under the transitional arrangements and would not get an increase in cash terms this year they would get an increase in subsequent years because the transitional arrangements would be inflation proof. That puzzled me because that is not how I understand transitional arrangements to work. If they did, they would last almost indefinitely—until people stopped claiming benefit. Is he saying that while income support will be increased only in line with prices the transitional arrangements will be kept in line with those price increases?

Mr. Scott: I shall check back on what my right hon. Friend said. In essence, we are committed at the moment to protection in cash terms of existing claimants—except for disabled people who receive domestic assistance in excess of £10 a week, who will receive not only cash protection but inflation protection. Perhaps that is the point on which the hon. Gentleman has picked up.
The fourth aim of the reforms was to increase self-reliance. This will be done in part by giving claimants a set income for them to manage—in much the same way as others in society, many of whom are little better off than those on income support. The present scheme, with its implied detailed breakdown into this or that expense, undermines that aim. It cannot make sense these days to run a benefit system that has us asking claimants how much they spend each week on washing powder. In addition, the regulations in chapter VI of part V provide for important changes in the treatment of capital. At present, capital of more than £3,000 debars someone from benefit completely. In future, the upper limit will be doubled to £6,000, with reductions in benefit only for those with savings between the two amounts. The success of this Government in bringing down inflation has made saving much more worthwhile. The new rules for income support encourage that.
The level of part-time earnings that will be ignored for benefit purposes is being improved to £15 for people

receiving the disability premium, lone parents, and unemployed couples who have been on supplementary benefit or income support for two years. That is provided for in schedule 8. With unemployment now falling, we hope that this will encourage more claimants to regain contact with the world of work.
The last two objectives in the Green Paper—fairness across work boundaries and alignment with other income-related benefits — are also fully reflected in the regulations. The present mismatch of rules for help for those in and out of work or on similar incomes can leave someone worse off from taking a job or after meeting their housing costs. The last problem led to the creation of housing benefit supplement. Anybody who has had anything to do with that benefit will not see it as a sensible or easily understood benefit. The need for that will end next April.
The regulations we are considering today and those on family credit and housing benefit, which will be before the House shortly, achieve this by providing a common approach to the assessment of resources, based on net earnings. That is covered in part V. At the same time, we have taken the opportunity to align many of the detailed rules, ending, wherever possible, the differences—often quite small — that now exist between supplementary benefit, family income supplement, and housing benefit. As a result of those changes, under the new scheme people will be treated in a consistent way. In particular, housing benefit will be assessed on the same basis whether claimants are in or out of work. The maximum adult payment in family credit will be made at the level of the income support couple's personal allowance and, because of the planned increase in spending, more help will go to support low-income families in work.
That common approach in the income-related benefits has been generally welcomed, whatever other criticisms people may make of the transition to income support. It has been possible only because income support itself is less complex than supplementary benefit.
The House may be relieved to know that that leads me to my concluding remarks on the first set of regulations, those concerning income support. I believe that few hon. Members would argue that the present supplementary benefit scheme is the ideal model of a benefit system. There can be only one answer to the question, if supplementary benefit did not exist would anybody seek to invent it in its present form? I recognise that people have views and criticisms of particular proposals and of what we are doing as we move to the new system. However, it has been depressing for me, coming fresh to this subject, to feel that much of the logic of the criticisms I have heard has been a defence of the status quo, sometimes from sources that had been critical of that status quo until we decided to change it. That is a sterile approach and I believe that change is needed urgently if we are to produce a benefit structure more suited to modern-day needs.
That is the aim of the regulations before the House. We consider that the new income support scheme provided for in detail in the general regulations achieves a more coherent system, which is better able to direct extra help where it is needed, is more readily understood by claimants and paves the way for a better standard of service.
We are moving to a new system. The regulations set out clearly the basis upon which we will be embarking upon that. No benefit rules can be set in stone for ever. We, and I am sure Labour Members and the variety of


organisations which properly seek to defend the rights and interests of those in need in our society, will no doubt be monitoring the regulations with great care.

Mr. Marlow: rose—

Mr. Scott: I believe that the provisions in the regulations provide the right structure for help.

Mr. Marlow: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Scott: I will give way to my hon. Friend. I have never failed to do so.
As I said, they do provide the right structure for help. No doubt it will be necessary to develop them in the future in order to ensure that they are up to date in seeking to provide for the inevitable needs of society in the future.

Mr. Marlow: I am sorry if I appeared to be agitated, but my hon. Friend said "finally" on a couple of occasions and gave the impression that he was about to finish his sentence and depart from his speech. My hon. Friend said that he would tell the House the logic of the Government's decision with regard to child benefit, and we are waiting with bated breath for my hon. Friend to tell us. I know that one of the points my hon. Friend might suggest is that we want to target that benefit—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Order. It might be helpful if we listen to whether the Minister does suggest that.

Mr. Marlow: rose—

Mr. Scott: I am sure that I can be of assistance to my hon. Friend if he will give me a moment. We are discussing three different sets of regulations. I have just come to the conclusion of the first set, on income support, and I am now going on to deal with the next two sets of regulations. I hope that I will deal with them more briefly than I have been able to do so far because of the way in which I have given way to hon. Members here and there. I give my hon. Friend a solemn assurance that before I sit down finally I will deal with the point he raised earlier, which I undertook to cover.
I turn now to the draft Social Security (Claims and Payments) Regulations 1987. They cover all social security benefits and set out the administrative rules—which are not unimportant when we consider a social security system —which we intend will operate from the start of the income support scheme. The Green and White Papers on the reform of the social security system expressed the intention to pursue common rules to bring about greater harmonisation and simplification. These regulations replace in whole or in part separate provisions in 10 existing statutory instruments. They represent a significant move towards a more easily understood benefit scheme.
There are four main changes from current practice. The first covers the time limits for claiming benefits. That is an essential element for efficient administration of the schemes. We asked the Social Security Advisory Committee to consider and report on the subject. Its report and the Secretary of State's response were published in March of this year and most of the committee's recommendations have been incorporated in the regulations. The general thrust is to move away from the complicated and often contentious concept of "good cause" for failing to claim earlier. For example, a person claiming retirement pension or widow's benefit will be able to receive benefit for up to the statutory maximum of a

year before the receipt of the claim, without having to give reasons or show "good cause" for the delay in claiming. That is a step in the right direction.
Secondly, there is at present a considerable mismatch between the periods for which benefits are paid. Contributory benefits such as unemployment benefit and the incapacity benefits are paid in arrears. Supplementary benefit is paid in advance. Consequently, someone receiving unemployment benefit with supplementary benefit receives payments which cover two separate and distinct periods. A vast majority of claimants find it difficult to understand how that comes about. Because it is difficult to understand as well as to administer, we propose to pay income support in arrears to nearly all claimants below pension age. Pensioners and widows will be paid income support in advance in line with retirement pension and widow's benefit. We will be bringing those two separate schemes into alignment.

Mr. Frank Field: I promise that I will not rise again during the Minister's speech. Will he take this opportunity to underline what a big change he has announced? His last statement was probably the most significant he has made so far. Does he realise the pressure that it will bring about in offices which already face pressure close to breaking point? Constituents will be turning up without a penny. They will be told that under the old scheme they would have registered and obtained benefit from that day forth but that now they may have to wait for seven days without any money. What advice will he give staff who may worry about their own physical safety under the new rules?

Mr. Scott: I sometimes give way with trepidation but never with reluctance to the hon. Gentleman because I acknowledge his skill in this subject, and the questions he raises may help to clarify the situation. Therefore. I shall never be reluctant to give way to him.
I think that the new system will be simpler and more clearly understood. It will be helped by the fact that, as part of the package, we will disregard last earnings, which were not disregarded under the previous system. They will be disregarded completely in terms of the calculation for income support. A clear majority of claimants come on to benefit from work. Claimants will now be able to use any final earnings to live on while awaiting their first benefit payment. They will no longer be excluded for the period covered by their last earnings. That is, I believe, a far more sensible arrangement than the present pattern. If there are particularly hard cases, I believe that the social fund will be able to operate to provide help. I think that the improvement that I have mentioned will deal with most of the hon. Gentleman's worries on the alignment front, and that it will be generally welcomed and will prove beneficial.
The third change is that it will be possible to make deductions from retirement pension, unemployment benefit and incapacity benefits when paid with income support if it has been decided that the direct payment of benefit to a third party is necessary—for example, to prevent the risk of disconnection for fuel debts. At present, if a pensioner's sole source of income is supplementary benefit, direct payment can be made to a fuel board. However, that may not be possible if the pensioner receives the same overall amount of benefit, but made up in part of retirement pension and in part of supplementary benefit. Again, I consider that a sensible arrangement.
Finally, we have introduced a new provision covering the suspension of benefit. In Committee on the Social


Security Act 1986, Ministers undertook to review the suspension rules, particularly as they applied to cases involving an appeal to the Social Security Commissioners. We propose that the social security appeal tribunal award may be suspended for a limited period only while consideration is given to an appeal to a commissioner. If within one month the claimant is not given notice that an application for leave to appeal has been made, the suspension will lapse.
Overall, the regulations will make for more effective and economical administration, and, I believe, will be more clearly understood by claimants.
We also have before us today the Social Security Benefits Up-rating (No. 2) Order, which is of direct interest to a large proportion of the population at all levels of income. As I said at the outset, about 70 per cent. of the population live in families receiving some income from social security benefits. The most sizeable group of social security benefit recipients are pensioners. About 9.8 million people receive a retirement pension of some kind, at a cost this year of some £18.5 billion. The number of pensioners has risen by 1 million since the Government came to office, and will continue to rise fairly steadily to a peak of nearly 13.5 million in about 40 years time.
Let me deal with a point which has been raised across the Floor of the House. However desirable increases in the basic pension may appear, they cannot simply be viewed in the short term. Raising the level of the basic pension creates an obligation for the future which it would be irresponsible to ignore. For that reason, we took the view when we came to office that it was right to update pensions by the increase in prices rather than by the previous Government's formula of prices or earnings, whichever was the higher.
Ours is a guarantee that protects the pensioners' standard of living, but creates no long-term obligation which might arise beyond the country's ability to meet it. The order therefore provides for an increase in retirement pension of 4.2 per cent., in line with price movements between September 1986 and September 1987. That uprating will raise the basic pension by £2.65 for a married couple and £1.65 for a single person. Most people will receive a larger cash increase, because the uprating will also apply to graduated pension, which is received by two thirds of pensioners, and to earnings-related pension. The amount of earnings-related pension payable is increasing rapidly, and SERPS can add over £20 a week to the basic entitlement of a person retiring this year who has been on average earnings. I stress that, because many people persist in claiming that we have abolished earnings-related pension, a claim that its 1.8 million recipients would find difficult to understand.
The order covers all the contributory benefits and the non-contributory benefits for disablement. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced on 27 October, it proposes an increase in all those benefits in line with the retail price index movement. I shall not take up more of the House's time in commenting on that, because I wish — to the great relief of my hon. Friend the Member from Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow)—to deal with child benefit, which is an interest shared by both sides of the House.
The House will know that the order does not propose an increase in child benefit on this occasion. It is important

for hon. Members to remember, however, that it does increase one-parent benefit to £4·90 and child dependency additions to £8·40. Regulations will also be laid before the House to increase the maternity payment under the social fund by £5 to £85. All those are benefits that go to families with some degree of special need.
The assistance for families on income support, and our proposals for family credit for low-income working families with children all concentrate help on those in most need. Child benefit, by contrast, goes to all families with children, regardless of income. The wives of hon. Members who are in the Chamber tonight, or hon. Members themselves who have children under 19 in full-time education, will receive £7·25 a week from tax revenues as a result. Child benefit is, and will remain, a valuable contribution to the extra costs that every family incurs as a result of bringing up children. I must declare my own current interest in the matter! It will remain an important element in meeting those extra costs, and the purpose will continue to be met whether the benefit remains at £7·25 or goes up by 30p.

Mr. Marlow: I thank my hon. Friend for giving way, and I apologise for intervening earlier.
My hon. Friend will be well aware that child benefit, although we are a much wealthier nation, now gives less to families than child tax allowance used to give 20 years ago. My hon. Friend rightly said that what we want to do is to target money to the poorest families. Conservative Members are all very much in favour of that, but if we are going to find and target that money, why are we taking it from other families, rather than from the general taxpayer?

Mr. Scott: We have identified families on low incomes, whether they are on income support or in work, as one of the groups that particularly need help. Government is about allocating priorities, and we believe that giving extra help to those low-income families is a higher priority than providing a 30p increase across the board. The saving is some £120 million. That has made a contribution—less than half, but still a contribution—to finding the extra £300 million that we are putting into benefits for families on low incomes.

Mr. Robin Squire: If I may use my hon. Friend's language of priorities, let me ask whether he accepts that a consequence of this order of priorities is that between 30 and 40 per cent. of families entitled to receive the new family credit will not be claiming it. This is a consequence of priority being given to chasing a relatively small sum from families who are relatively well off.

Mr. Scott: My hon. Friend makes several assumptions about take-up in the new system of family credit. The new scheme will, I believe, be generous. We are assuming that it will apply to twice as many families as have benefited—

Mrs. Beckett: That assumption is based on the most dubious grounds.

Mr. Scott: The hon. Lady will no doubt play her part, as we in the Government will play ours, in seeking to draw attention in the community at large to the new system of benefits. Already we reckon that it will go to twice as many families as before, and it will be much more generous. I believe that our communication strategy, and the fact that the general changeover to income support and the new


pattern of benefits that we are introducing in April next year will doubtless arouse considerable interest throughout the country, will help take-up.
Our experience on the take-up of benefits is that it is those who are entitled to comparatively small amounts who decline to take up benefit. Those who are entitled to the larger amounts on any particular scheme tend, on balance, to claim. I see no reason why that should change when we introduce the new scheme.
I emphasise that increases in child benefit would not have given an extra penny to those families who were most in need—those already on income-related benefits. What matters to them is the level of child support that comes through the income support scheme and family credit. That is why, as I said, we are putting an extra £300 million into those benefits next year against the saving—30p, not uprated this year — of £120 million which would have gone to the uprating of child benefit. That will ensure that the extra money available goes directly to those with the greatest needs, whereas the major benefit of an increase in child benefit would have been to people in the upper half of the income range.
It would not be right at this point to redistribute resources in that way. I hope that, on reflection, the House, arid, in particular, my hon. Friends who talk to me about this and who I know care passionately about this, will agree that our decision for 1988 is the right one. I commend the instruments to the House.

Mr. Robin Cook: It may be for your ease of mind, Mr. Deputy Speaker, if I assure you that the Opposition have no intention of trying to take the debate through the night. Unless seriously provoked, we shall not oppose the business motion at 10 o'clock. We recognise that it will he for the convenience of the House to reach decisions at 10 o'clock. One reason why it will be for the convenience of the House, and why it is important that the House should avail itself of that opportunity, is that the House should be given the opportunity to reject the income support regulations, which will leave 4 million current claimants, and over 4 million dependants in the households of those claimants, worse off.
The uprating order, as the Minister recognised, is significant chiefly because of the benefit that is not uprated —child benefit. When the Secretary of State made his uprating statement in the House, I teased the right hon. Gentleman with the promise in the Conservative manifesto that child benefit would continue to be paid as now. I then added that we were no doubt intended to take that observation strictly literally.
I offered that observation in jest. However, it has since emerged from some press reports that that line in the Conservative manifesto was carefully honed; that a decision had already been taken before the election that child benefit would not be uprated this year. Indeed, we are advised by Mr. Hugo Young that, in a briefing to Conservative party candidates, the then Secretary of State was informed by some candidates that they intended to ask him in open session what that meant and were requested not to do so because he was anxious not to tell the conference. If a decision had been reached by the Government before 11 June, not to uprate child benefit, that decision should have been shared with the electorate before 11 June so that it could have taken part in the decision-making process.
One reason why I find the decision not to uprate child benefit perverse is that this is a Government who are constantly and cheerfully cutting taxes without the same kind of anxiety about whether the benefits of those cuts in tax necessarily go to those most in need.
Child benefit is a replacement of a tax allowance. I have no doubt that if it had been retained as a tax allowance the Government would happily be uprating it in line with inflation, although the case for doing that is exactly the same as the case for uprating child benefit. Indeed, in a sense, the case for uprating child benefit is more progressive since, after all, an increase in a cash benefit is of greater value to low-income families, who may not be paying taxes, and of less value to high-income families, who will be obtaining the tax allowance at the higher rates.
The decision not to uprate child benefit has two consequences. First, it increases the poverty trap. The Minister ended by saying that one reason why the Government were persuaded not to increase child benefit was that increasing child benefit did not help those most in need — those on means-tested benefit. One of the ironies of the decision not to increase child benefit is that it will increase the number of people on means-tested benefit.
We are grateful to the Minister for replies to two parliamentary questions which tell us that another 10,000 people will qualify for family credit as a result of the freeze, and a further 5,000 will qualify for income support. In other words, another 15,000 households will be put into the means-tested trap—the poverty trap. Child benefit is the best single way of helping families out of the poverty trap, precisely because it is a benefit that does not go down as their income goes up and as they attempt to make their way in the labour market.
The second consequence is that the decision will tilt the balance of distribution of income in the household from the mother to the father. It is the mother who bears most of the cost of the children, and those costs are increasing. Next April, thanks to the Government's decision in the Social Security Act 1986, those families not on income support — not on means-tested benefit—will find that they no longer qualify for free school meals. Half a million children from families whose parents are in work will lose entitlement to free school meals next April. That will cost the mother in those families, on average, £3 per week per child. As the chances are that if such mothers have one child in that category they will probably have two, it is likely to cost many mothers £6 per week.
It is odd that, at the very time when the Government are to impose that additional burden on the mother, they should choose to freeze her child benefit, the one income that she can claim on her own. Labour Members cannot accept the claims of Conservatives to be the party of the family when they plainly are not prepared to be the party of family benefits. They cannot have their claim to be the party of the family on the cheap.
Child benefit is not uprated at all. The other benefits in the uprating order are, but they are uprated only in line with prices, not earnings, although earnings are going up twice as fast as prices. Let me respond to what the Minister said about the effect of that on pensions. He said that the effect of the order would be to maintain pensioners' living standards, but we must be more precise than that about the effect. The effect of uprating pensions in line with prices, not earnings, is to maintain the purchasing power of the pension, but it is also to make sure that those


pensioners who are dependent on the basic state pension do not share in the improvement in the living standards of the rest of the population. Indeed, they are left behind with a benefit that is constantly shrinking as a proportion of average income.
In 1979 the single pension was equivalent to 20·4 per cent. of gross male earnings. In 1988, as a result of the order, that proportion will have shrunk from 20·4 per cent. to a beggarly 17·2 per cent. I would not pretend that 20·4 per cent. was an adequate figure for the basic state pension —far from it—but at least under the previous Labour Government that figure did not shrink. It did not shrink because the previous Labour Government linked the pension uprating to earnings. That link, as the Minister acknowledged, was the first to be broken by the Government.
It was arguably the worst cut in benefit that we have seen from the Government, despite the many occasions on which they have broken benefit links. Had that link been retained, next April the single pension would, in cash terms, be worth £9·20 a week more and the pension for a couple would be worth £14·60 a week more. That may not qualify as serious money in the City of London, but it would make a big difference to the weekly budget of many British pensioners.
I note from the figures on the impact of these changes, which are published by the Government, that, on average, the income of those 3 million pensioners who are dependent on state benefits will go down. The average entitlement of people under 80 years of age will go down by £1 per week, and the average entitlement of those pensioners over 80 will go down by 30p per week. That will happen to some of the most vulnerable in our community.
An entertaining perspective to that reduction in entitlement was provided by the wit and wisdom of our Prime Minister. You may have noticed, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that last week the Prime Minister did her Christmas shopping at a Marks and Spencer store, in the course of which she purchased a cashmere sweater. I note that she stated that she purchased the cashmere sweater because she is unable to wear wool next to her skin. I am touched to discover that there is at least one human frailty that I share with the Prime Minister. No doubt it is because of our thin skin.
On purchasing the cashmere sweater, the Prime Minister observed to the assembled throng of shop girls,
As you get older you need your comforts—the comfort of cashmere.
I would not go so far as the Prime Minister and describe the comfort of cashmere as a basic need, or suggest that a loan should be available out of the social fund to pay for the purchase of cashmere sweaters, but I agree with the Prime Minister that as one gets older one needs some comfort. One needs the ability to pay for the heating in one's home, to pay for the use of public transport or to pay for the occasional treat for the grandchildren. As a result of the decline in the value of their pension, even those comforts are as far beyond the income of some pensioners as is the purchase of a cashmere sweater.
The other regulation that is of even greater contention is the one on income support. It scraps supplementary benefit and puts into place the new benefit system that was the centrepiece of the Social Security Act 1986. The Minister described the lengthy process behind the

regulation and the long period of mass consultation. I have difficulty in reconciling that with the reality of the reviews that were carried out by the previous Secretary of State, which took place in committees chaired by Ministers from the DHSS and were packed with the Government's friends from the Adam Smith Institute and the Institute of Directors. The Green Paper was written at a weekend conference held in a stately home. Even the agenda was classified "secret". One senior civil servant who was present made the diverting comment that the most open discussions were to be found in the gentlemen's room.
We have several fundamental objections to the structure of the income support system that is proposed in the regulations. The most fundamental is that the regulations sweep away all the additions that at present help claimants to get by. Those are the additions which the previous Minister of State, in a moment of Olympian disdain, described as "the twiddly bits" of the social security system. They may be "twiddly" to the Minister, but they are important to claimants. They include, for instance, additions for diet for those who suffer from diabetes or other medical conditions ; additions for laundry for claimants who are incontinent or who have children who wet the bed; additions for hot water for claimants who need more than the one bath a week that they are allowed under the supplementary benefit regulations and additions for heating for claimants who need additional warmth in their homes or who have the misfortune to live in one of the houses that were devised by architects who had lost the art of insulating houses, assuming that the tenant would be able to put up with constantly high fuel costs.
I noticed that last week the Prime Minister—no doubt in a fit of inadvertence—said that last winter heating additions totalled £430 million. She took pride in that fact and told the House that that was a "record" amount. However, she omitted to advise the House last week that tonight we would he invited to pass a regulation that embodies a structure that cancels every one of those heating additions and abolishes that £430 million additional help for claimants. We are invited to do so at the very time when electricity prices are to increase by 8 per cent. to fatten up the electricity boards for the private sector.
We are told that the change represents targeting. In fact, the extinction of all those weekly additions for specific and particular needs is the precise reverse of targeting. It is shooting blind without regard for the individual circumstances of claimants. It will undoubtedly leave behind many casualties who will be worse off.
I concede to the Minister that my hon. Friends and I are not enthusiastic about means-tested benefits, but we accept that there will always be a case for a means-tested benefit as an income of last resort. However, the Government are offering the worst formula of a means-tested benefit, entitlement to which will be measured by reference to income, but the benefit of which will not be measured by any judgment of the claimant's needs.
The needs of the claimant are to be met, and the additions are to be replaced, by the new premiums for certain categories, but those premiums will not compensate for the abolition of all the weekly additions. Any claimant who currently manages to obtain two or more additions is almost certain to be worse off. Some claimants, especially disabled people, will be spectacularly worse off. Several disabled claimants face a loss of


entitlement of up to £50 per week. There may be only a few hundred people in that category, but we know from the Government's own statement on the impact of the changes that 20,000 disabled claimants face a weekly loss of entitlement of more than £5.
That group should not be among the losers. It is blunt targeting that results in making worse off those in our community who are most in need of help. What makes their loss of entitlement especially offensive is that the House is asked to approve the change before the Government have received the results of their own survey of the needs of disabled people and the extent of disability in our country. If there is a case for changing the benefits of the disabled in a way that will leave so many people losers, that case should be made after, not before, the Government have received the results of the survey.

Mr. Scott: Would the hon. Gentleman argue, by the same token, that we should not have provided the extra resources that will help disabled people when we introduce income support? Overall, about £60 million extra will help to meet their needs. We are introducing a system under which 85 per cent. of people under the age of 60 who receive disability premium, will gain or be unaffected in real terms. About 44 per cent. will gain more than £5 per week. Would the hon. Gentleman have wanted that to be held up also?

Mr. Cook: If the Minister is to provide that additional help, of course it will be welcome. However, it should not he provided or paid for—as is happening under the change in income support—by reductions in the benefit of other categories, including reductions for other disabled people, 80,000 of whom will be worse off as a result of the change—20,000 by more than £5 per week. Moreover, the figure of 85 per cent. that the Minister quoted as the number of disabled people who will be better off relates only to disabled people who are aged under 65. As most disabled people who at present obtain weekly additions by reason of their medical or other disabilities are over 65 years of age, it is partial pleading to claim that most of those who are aged under 65 will benefit from the change. Most of those disabled people who are over 65 will suffer from the change.
There are other claimants who do not qualify for any premium. As we are discussing disabled people, let us consider the position of those who have given up work to care for a disabled relative. Many tens of thousands of women have left the labour force to work full-time looking after an aged relative. That is exactly the kind of step that I should have thought the Government would wish to encourage as part of their philosophy of care in the community. At present, those women qualify for the longterm rate of supplementary benefit. As a result of the change they will qualify only for the single person allowance, with no premium. They will be £5 per week worse off, even if they are not in receipt of any weekly additions. If they receive a weekly addition, they will be £10 or more worse off per week.
I know that we will be told that their benefit will be protected. However, in this case "protection" means that their benefit will be frozen and will not be increased, and because the drop in the entitlement of carers is so large, they are unlikely to receive any increase in their benefit until 1990. Moreover, those who choose to leave the labour force to care for a disabled elderly relative after

April next year will find that they obtain benefit only at the new reduced rate. They may find themselves living in the same street as someone in identical circumstances, who is providing an identical service, but they will receive £5 or £10 a week less. They will not find that fair or reasonable.
Carers who are currently in receipt of benefit and whose income is protected may take a seasonal job next summer —some people do if such work is available—and they will find it unreasonable when they return to claim benefit to discover that their benefit is £5 or £10 less than they had received in the spring of this year. That will not seem like progress or reform to them; it will seem plain daft.
There is another layer of discrimination in the regulations that deserves attention. The Minister pleaded that simplicity was one of the merits and virtues of the new system. However, one of the odd features of the system —I would hardly call it simplicity—is that there are now five different entitlements to benefit, depending on the age of the claimant or his or her partner. That seems a rather odd complication. In seeking to assist the Minister to achieve simplicity in the benefit system, I suggest that he could achieve greater simplicity by dropping the bizarre discrimination against single people under 25. Under the new regulations they will receive £7 less than a single person over 25. The social security system will now be the only system in the whole of our legislation that recognises a unique and distinct age of majority to be 25. That bears no relation to reality of life at 24.
It is possible that people who have worked for a number of years and who have left the labour force because of redundancy will discover that, after those several years of work, they have an entitlement to income support at the junior level only. It will be possible for service men to complete a term of engagement, to be discharged and find, if they attempt to obtain income support, that they are not entitled to the full adult rate.
Long before the age of 25 I was a separate householder, living in my own right in my own house. I should be very surprised if that was not the case with the Minister. Indeed, when the Bells call us for the Division at 10 o'clock tonight, I should be extremely surprised if the overwhelmingly majority of Members voting were not living by themselves or with their own families by the age of 25. Frankly, I think that it would be ludicrous for us to vote for a reduced level of entitlement for single people under 25. That plainly supposes that they are a reasonable, partial burden on their parents, despite the fact that most unemployed young people tend to be found in the households of low-income parents.
I note that the National Association of Probation Officers predicted—it is in the position to know—that the reduced entitlement for young people is likely to result in an increase in poverty-related crime. That would not be surprising because, in truth, this discrimination has no logic in the benefit system and, given the need of young people, no justification. The sole reason for this discrimination against unemployed people under 25 is that it is part of the many attempts by the Government to rig the labour market for the young unemployed and force them to settle for lower wages, worse working conditions and more insecure employment. We reject that discrimination.
We also reject the basis on which the system will create invidious distinctions between different categories of claimants. That was perfectly expressed by the Social


Security Advisory Committee, which was, after all, set up by the Government to advise them. With regard to the premium system, the committee observed that it represents
a sophisticated variation on the theme of deserving and undeserving poor with higher rates going to sympathetic groups such as the elderly or the disabled and lower rates to groups such as the unemployed, whose plight is liable to evoke less popular sympathy.
Our benefit system should not be based on moral approval for people's reasons for drawing benefit. It should be based on their need for benefit and not by reference to the particular reason why they find themselves claiming it.
I have listed our objections to the structure of the new system. It should be admitted—I cheerfully concede it— that those objections have been put to the Government over the past three years since they first produced the proposals. However, we have failed to make headway in persuading the Government to amend the structure.
Tonight at least we have a new dimension to the debate. For the first time we have the figures to fill in the blank spaces in the regulations. Until the other week the only figures that we had for the level of income support were those in the annex to the 1985 White Paper. We were always told that those figures were purely illustrative. Indeed, in one sense they certainly were illustrative, because there was never any attempt to explain how they were derived.
The central weakness of the review carried out by the previous Secretary of State was that at no time during the review, and during the consultations before or after the publication of the Green Paper, did the Government attempt to measure the needs of the claimants. It was a nil-cost review, which simply consisted of redividing a fixed sum in a different way for the same number of people. We do not know whether the resultant figures are adequate for the needs of claimants. We do not even know how the present level of supplementary benefit has been put together.
We know what the level of supplementary benefit is supposed to cover, because regulation 4 of the current regulations tells us. The full list published in regulation 4 of the supplementary benefit regulations, shows that the benefit is supposed to cover
food, household fuel, the purchase, cleaning, and replacement of clothing and footwear, normal travel costs, weekly laundry costs, miscellaneous household expenses such as toilet articles, cleaning materials, window cleaning, and the replacement of small household goods (for example, crockery, cooking utensils, light bulbs), and leisure and amenity items such as television licence and rental, newspapers, confectionary and tobacco.
All those things are to be covered by a weekly single person's allowance of £30·40. We do not know whether that can be done—nobody at the DHSS has attempted to demonstrate that it can. Indeed, the Government have shown a stunning lack of interest in whether what they claim is covered by benefit can be purchased within the terms of that benefit.
We are aware that £30·40 ostensibly includes a notional £11 a week for food. The DHSS has not attempted to prove to us whether it is possible to feed oneself on £11 a week. Frankly, I rather doubt whether many hon. Members, certainly those on the Conservative Benches, could feed themselves for a day on £11. Certainly when one Conservative Member tried three years ago to live for

one week on that level of supplementary benefit he was in darkness by the end of the week because he could not afford to turn on the light and was cadging free drinks in the pub because he could no longer stand his round.

Mr. Frank Field: Where is he now?

Mr. Cook: He is standing free drinks to hon. Members on a Sunday afternoon.
We have been assured that the figures in the White Paper were illustrative. There was always the hint held out to us that the real figures would be better. Time after time when we referred to the illustrative losers in the annex to the White Paper we were reminded that those were illustrative figures and that we could not assume that there would be as many losers when the real figures were unveiled. We now have those real figures, and they are worse than the figures in the 1985 White Paper.

Mr. Scott: indicated dissent

Mr. Cook: The Minister shakes his head, but I believe that I will carry him with me before I finish, unless he wishes to get into real difficulty with his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State.
To understand my argument it is necessary to take account of the alleged compensation for the cut in housing benefit. That cut in housing benefit arises from the exclusion of 20 per cent. of rates from coverage under housing benefit. Just before the election the Government, by the sheer stark unpopularity of their proposals, were obliged to commit themselves to compensate claimants on income support for that additional expenditure on rates. The additional burden of rates that claimants will face has been costed at £1·30 a week, but that is an average figure.
I was grateful to the Minister for his reply to my parliamentary question in which he admitted that "slightly under half' of all claimants will end up paying more than £1·30 per week. However, some of them will be paying spectacularly more than £1·30 a week. If hon. Members care to step outside the Chamber they will find themselves in the Inner London borough of Westminster. It is Conservative-controlled. The average weekly rates burden to be faced by those currently on housing benefit, but who will lose the entitlement to claim benefit for one-fifth of their rates, will be double £1·30.
In the Minister's own constituency of Chelsea the average weekly payment that his constituents will have to make for rates will not be £1·30—it will be £2·30. Even if they received the £1·30, they would end up £1 a week worse off.

Mr. Scott: ILEA.

Mr. Cook: With the greatest respect to the Minister, the source of that increase has vastly more to do with the way in which the Government have starved and garrotted local authorities in Inner London by the purse strings than with any spending decision that the authorities made.
Nevertheless, I shall leave aside the cavilling point whether £1·30 is fair or not. Let us accept the figure and turn our attention to how it is accommodated in the income support figures. A moment's reflection will demonstrate that it has not been accommodated in those figures. A parliamentary written answer to myself sets out a table providing for the uprating of the 1985 White Paper figures. It is perfectly clear that the working principle on


which the DHSS has proceeded is that of taking the figures in the White Paper and uprating them by the Rossi index —that is, the RPI, less housing costs.
It need not surprise us that the DHSS has chosen the Rossi index, because it is the lowest index of inflation that could be found, so it is to be expected that the DHSS would use it. All the premiums are uprated fully by the Rossi index; but if we examine personal allowances for couples, in particular, and if we assume that the 1985 figure was uprated by Rossi, and then look for the excess over Rossi, we find that the additional element that has been added to the personal allowance for couples is not £1·30 at all—it is a beggarly 30p a week. At some stage in the process £1 has been lost in the pipeline.
I want to turn now to the Minister's vigorous shaking of the head when I suggested that the £1·30 had not been compensated for. When I responded during the statement on uprating and accused the Secretary of State of misleading the House in this matter, he was very hurt and chided me for doubting his word and for suggesting that he would do anything quite so heinous as to mislead the House. Very well, then: I shall give the Minister the choice, and I shall be grateful if he will tell us what he prefers. Either he can say that the 1985 figures have been fully uprated, in which case the Department has patently not compensated the income support claimants for the additional and new rates burden, or he can say that the Department has compensated the income support claimants for the new rates burden, in which case he is obliged to admit that the 1985 figures had not been honestly uprated. The DHSS can have it one of those two ways, but not both. If the Minister is now trying to tell us that the £1·30 is completely present, he must admit that when I suggested earlier that the White Paper figures had not been fully uprated, I was absolutely correct. They had not ; £1 is missing.
Logically, if the net benefit in income support is now lower than in 1985, there must be more losers after we allow for the new rates burden. The Government are reluctant to admit that there are more losers, but they have at least admitted that there will be 3·7 million losers, three quarters of a million of whom will lose more than £5 a week. None of those 3·7 million will receive a penny increase in their benefits in April next year. The three quarters of a million who lose more than £5 a week are unlikely to receive a penny in their benefit in 1989, either. They will have to wait until 1990 for their next uprating. They will all face a new weekly charge for rates burden, averaged at £1·30—in many cases it will be double £1·30. They will all find that they have no entitlement to single payments, because those have been abolished. If they try to find a substitute for single payments, they will be obliged to take a loan from the social fund, for which repayments will be deducted from their benefit, leaving them with an even lower, more meagre income.
It is not surprising that, on that basis, income support has few friends. The Minister of State referred to the lengthy consultation process. One of the curious features of that process is that the review bodies never published the evidence they received. However, we have the evidence of the survey that was carried out by the Child Poverty Action Group. Of 50 organisations that submitted comments on income support, Child Poverty Action Group counted 47 that were either flatly against it or heavily critical of it. The group could find only three of the 50 that supported income support. They were: The

Association of British Chambers of Commerce; The Association of Independent Businesses; and the Monday Club.
I do not comment on whether those organisations might be politically favourable to the Government. I do them the charity of assuming that they came to the issue with open minds and allowed the free play of intellect to shine on those minds, coming to the conclusion that, on balance, they liked the proposal because it appealed to them intellectually. But those organisations are not conspicuous for representing claimants on benefit. The financial directors of those chambers of commence have no conception of the skills of budget management required by claimants to keep body and soul together from one week to the next.
My hon. Friends and I have that conception. We represent those claimants and work with the communities in which they are found in large numbers. We see them weekly. We know the poverty and the hardship that they experience. We know the loss of dignity and self-respect that comes from being unable to clothe their family or heat their home. We know that we cannot tolerate the level of benefit becoming worse, or the poverty growing deeper. That is why we shall vote against the regulations tonight.

Sir Ian Gilmour: The hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) certainly drew some blood, particularly on the subject of the disabled, but I am sure that, on reflection, he will agree that the idyllic picture that he tried to draw of what happened to pensions under the Labour Government bore little relation to what actually occurred. The system by which he sets such store did not operate in 1976, or 1978, and had the Labour Government won the 1979 election, it would not have operated in 1979, either. At the most, the system had a one in two rate of striking, which was not very effective.
My hon. Friend the Minister made a convincing speech, which was fortunate, because we did not, therefore, notice that quite a lot of time was spent on it. Of course, he gave way generously to several hon. Members during that speech. He gave a convincing rationale why we are changing from supplementary benefit and moving away from the family income supplement. Indeed, he was so convincing that I shall not extol the benefits of the change any further, because he did that much better than I could.
I want to ask one or two questions about the disabled, and comment on one or two areas about which my hon. Friend's remarks leave me less happy, one of which is the future of child benefit. Of course, we all welcome my hon. Friend's statement that, as has been said before, we shall spend £60 million more on the disabled this year. However, the organisations that represent, look after or help the disabled are exceedingly worried about some aspects of the scheme. I was rather hoping that my hon. Friend might have been able to give us more reassurances than he has been able to this afternoon. I trust that when my hon. Friend replies to the debate he will put many of our minds at rest, and particularly those of the people who run the organisations for the disabled.
Is it really true that, as has been estimated by some of these highly responsible and respectable organisations, at least 40 per cent. of the newly disabled pensioners, and at least 50 per cent. of newly disabled younger people will he worse off under the new system than they would have been? Is it true that about 280,000 new claimants will be


worse off? If that is true, how do the Government justify it? If it is not true, perhaps my hon. Friend will give us the correct figure. I know that those people will not be worse off than they are now, because at present they are not getting the money at all, but I should like to know whether they will be worse off than they would otherwise have been. If they are going to be, that cannot be right at a time of tax cuts, because people who are about to become disabled beneficiaries should not be treated worse than their predecessors. I hope that my hon. Friend will have some interesting and heart-warming things to tell us on that subject.
I and many of my hon. Friends have been accused of having historical views about child benefit. I do not mind having historical views, because very often such views are rather good. Anyway, the Government are taking a more historical view because they are going back to the 1930s. The great word nowadays is targeting, which is really Orwellian Newspeak for means testing. When we say that it is better to have targeted benefits for families with children rather than child benefit, we are really saying that the means test is a good thing. I am not sure that many people take that view.
So-called targeting does not work. My hon. Friend was extremely optimistic about how many people would take up these new means-tested benefits for children. I welcome these benefits and congratulate the Minister on getting the necessary money and in a moment I shall turn to how the benefit will be paid for. However, I do not know why he is so optimistic about the take-up rate and why he thinks that there will be a greater take-up than there has been in the past. The Government's figures seem to show that only about 60 per cent. of people will take it up. Therefore, the Government's intention on child benefit will hurt about 40 per cent. of the worst off. The failure to increase child benefit will not make the worst-off people better off; it will make them even worse off.
My hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow) said that it was good to have this extra £300 million, but he asked why it should be paid for, at least partly, by other families with children. The Minister did not altogether meet that point and an uncharacteristic element of waffle was contained in his answer. I was unable to discern a great deal of meaning in what he said. There is a logical fallacy here. If we are to give so-called targeted, which really means means-tested, money to families with children, where is the logic in reducing child benefit? The answer is that there is no logic there at all.
I do not know whether the Minister is reading a newspaper or studying child benefits. He said that the benefit goes to all children. Child benefit should go to everybody. That is why it is a good benefit. It is said that it costs £4·6 billion, but as my hon. Friend well knows, that is art accounting fallacy, because it is largely a tax allowance. At the very most it can be said to be public expenditure only in respect of those who pay more income tax than they get in child benefit. Therefore, the suggestion that it costs £4·6 billion is quite wrong.
Some of my hon. Friends and the Government seem to hold the view that it is perfectly all right to get any number of allowances in order to avoid paying tax. This takes in mortgage tax relief, married person's relief and single person's relief. That is apparently perfectly acceptable, but as soon as the money is paid out it somehow becomes

wrong. We all know that there are two sides to a balance sheet. Not paying in on one side is exactly the same as taking money out on the other side. I hope that we do not hear any more about the great mass of resources that is being put into child benefit, because it is not true. As I say, it is an accounting fallacy.
Child benefit is the best benefit that we have and has a far greater take-up than my hon. Friend with his great optimism about these matters will be able to match. It is paid to the mother and, above all, it does not deepen the poverty trap. It has been admitted that what is being done this year will increase the poverty trap. Another 15,000 families will be means-tested for benefits, and that is thoroughly wrong. I hope that that will never happen again.

Mr. Neil Hamilton: My right hon. Friend is not quite correct when he says that child benefit does not contribute to the poverty trap. The need to pay for the benefit requires income tax thresholds that are much lower than they would otherwise be and income tax rates that are much higher than they would otherwise be. As income tax bites on levels of income that by any standards are fairly low, child benefit is not only a disincentive but an engine of poverty.

Sir Ian Gilmour: As I say, it is basically a tax relief. I do not know how that could be called a disincentive. As soon as the worst-off people earn any more, their benefit goes down and they are trapped. That does not happen with child benefit, and that is why it is such an excellent benefit. The failure to uprate it this year is a bad blot on the review. I hope that such a mean-minded and unjustifiable thing will not happen next year.

Ms. Dawn Primarolo: I am grateful for this opportunity to make my first speech to this House. I am sure that many hon. Members are aware that my predecessor was Mr. Michael Cocks, now Lord Cocks of Hartcliffe. He represented Bristol, South for 17 years and during that time was Chief Whip in the Labour Government. In his maiden speech in 1970, he described Bristol, South as an industrial constituency with workshops, housing, transport and all the necessities required to enable a community to go about its daily life.
That is no longer the case in Bristol, South. Its industry is devastated to the point where there is only one major employer left. It is in the hands of Lord Hanson and we are not too optimistic about its future and his commitment to Bristol, South. Our housing is devastated and, as a result of deregulation, our transport services are poor and we have very few community facilities. I believe that new Members should bring to the House their experience of life and add it to the debates in order to make sure that people from all walks of life have their views reflected in the Chamber and in legislation.
As I say, Michael Cocks made his maiden speech in 1970, when I was 16. The debates on these regulations and the debates that we had last week on the Social Security Bill have caused me to reflect on what was on offer to me in 1970 and what is on offer now to our 16 and 17-year-olds. As other hon. Members have said, it is also interesting to note what is on offer for under-25-year-olds. I am not saying that in 1970 everything was rosy, but some things were different, including the opportunities open to


young people. The choices open to me as a 16-year-old were that I could stay on at school and obtain qualifications and go on to further education, apprenticeship or go into some form of full-time employment. Although we had criticisms of the opportunities that were available to us, the one thing we had was hope for the future and the feeling that we were moving forward and that things would improve.
When I look at young people's lives in Bristol, South, today, I see despondent, disappointed and rejected young people who believe that we do not value them as individuals in our society. Indeed, the legislation put forward by this Government confirms them in such views. Young people are denied financial independence and the proposals in the Social Security Bill will force them into work without choice through low-paid youth training schemes. They have problems of homelessness, alcohol abuse, and glue sniffing. We expect young people to deal with all the problems of our society without our help and support.
If we expect young people to respect our institutions and our values, to look to the future with hope, to take up and develop our values, we should show them the respect that is due to them as young people. If we do not, if we write off generations as we are doing, if we say to young people, "We do not care; go away; you do not count; you are not entitled to anything," which is what the Government are doing, we will store up a backlash for which we will all pay dearly. We cannot expect them to have our values if we are not prepared to value them as young people. We cannot say, "You are not entitled to choose your career."
The Government have said a great deal about freedom of choice and have employed a great deal of rhetoric in persuading everyone that they have the right to choose, yet under these proposals 16 and 17-year-olds are not permitted to choose their careers. They are not allowed financial independence if they refuse to be forced into YTS.
The Government are dealing with that age group in such a way because they are seeking to force down their expectations. That is part of an overall labour market strategy, to force down all wages and make us a low-wage economy. We should take every opportunity to point that out. If one looks at the jobs that are offered and advertised on television for the under-25s, time and again one finds that the wages are YTS rates.
Under the regulations being discussed today, 7 million adults and children will depend on the new income support scheme. Hon. Members have mentioned that the proposals for benefit will not supply the basic requirements that people need to live, such as a nutritionally adequate diet. The DHSS has issued advice to its adjudication officers on expenditure on food to be expected by a claimant family —that is two adults and two children of primary school age. That amount is £28·60 a week and was set without any consideration of whether one could provide a balanced diet with that sum. That amount is provided in paragraph 4736 of the S manual of the DHSS.
Separately, the Department has decided to educate people on eating well and on nutritious diets. Through speeches and advertisements it is encouraging us to eat a healthy diet and stating why that is important. The London Food Commission calculated that the cost of the recommended healthy diet was £48·04 a week for that same family of two adults and two primary school

children. Therefore, why is it that families on income support are denied the difference of £19·44 a week and are denied the opportunity to have a balanced diet? If one calculates what a family could buy with that money, the result is a diet that would be deficient in calories, with too much protein, low on fibre, high on fats and short on iron and calcium for children.
Why is it that healthy diets do not apply to people on income support? Why is it that the Government have two separate levels? Would it not have been a good idea if the two sections of the Department that proposed those matters had spoken to each other before they set the level of benefit for claimants? School meals were mentioned. In Avon, the county in which I have my constituency, parents have to pay 80p per day per child for a school meal. Those parents who will be taken out of the free school meal service will not only devastate the service and the people who work in it, mainly women; it will also mean that parents simply will not be able to pay that level of contribution.
Of the other items that one is expected to buy from income support, similar research by researchers Bradshaw and Morgan has been carried out on what families spend on clothing. The survey came out with absurd results of what people are entitled to buy. A woman will be able to afford a coat once every five years, a pair of shoes once every one and a half years and various items of underwear, one at a time, approximately every two and a half years. Perhaps some hon. Members make their clothes last that long, but it is a fact of life that the standard of clothing today is such that it simply does not last. The Government are saying to people that they are not entitled to eat properly or to dress in clothes that are adequate, because they are being used as pawns so that the Government can force down the wages of those in work.
In Bristol, South, because we are no longer the industrial constituency that we were, as a direct result of the Government's economic policies, many people claim supplementary benefit. The Bristol, South DHSS office is the second largest in our region. People in Bristol, South, whether or not the Government are making the system less complicated, understand clearly that the regulations will create a two-tier system, under which people will be forced back into low-paid jobs because the Government are too mean to give them the rights to which they are entitled. When young people look back on how they were treated, I hope that they will reflect that there were some hon. Members who said that they did not want them thrown on the rubbish tip, who did not believe that they were not valued in our society, who believed that they had a contribution to make and who treated them with respect. It is not the Government who will be remembered for doing that.

Mr. Robin Squire: It is a genuine pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Bristol, South (Ms. Primarolo) at the conclusion of her maiden speech. She represents one of the few Labour constituencies in the south, south-west or south-east of the country outside London, so the strain on her might be argued to be rather heavier than on other hon. Members. She delivered a fluent, assured, spirited and questioning speech which was of great credit to her and which I am sure will be held in great esteem by the House. It was a controversial speech but none the worse for that. No doubt she will find that


when she rises to her feet and makes similar contributions she might have a slightly more animated response from Conservative Members. However, I am sure that she will be able to cope with that.
One small but important quibble I have with the hon. Member's speech is that I would like to endorse, in stronger terms than she perhaps felt she could, her comments about her predecessor. Michael Cocks was well respected on both sides of the House as a man of considerable achievement. I put it on record that I thought he was an admirable parliamentarian.
I wish to concentrate on the uprating order and child benefit, and during my speech I shall quote from a couple of letters that I received only today from constituents. I welcome not only the way that my hon. Friend the Minister moved the orders but the uprating of the pension fully in line with our election pledge, which I am sure is welcomed by many of the elderly in my constituency. That uprating was regardless of the wealth of the pensioner.
I strongly regret, I know in company with many Conservatives both in the House and outside, the decision by the Government not to uprate child benefit this year. That loss of 30p a week may seem small to some people, but to poorer families and even some not-so-poor families it represents a sizeable sum. When it is, as an alternative, to be put into a means-tested benefit, it can only result in an increase of those in the poverty trap. We are told that 10,000 extra families will be dragged into the poverty trap. Those people will lose 70p for every £1 of net extra income they receive.
However others may interpret our election manifesto, I was quite clear as to what it meant and in this area not only was I in full support of what the Government were doing, but thought that it was fully in line with what we had been saying and carrying out during our years of government since 1979. Along with several other hon. Members, I received today a petition organised by the Save the Child Benefit Campaign, on which were some 40,000 signatures collected in a short time. I have no doubt that, had the organisers wished to extend the time of the campaign, they could have gathered many more signatures from all constituencies. Their concerns on child benefit are shared by hon. Members in all parties.
One letter I received today from a constituent was about child benefit. It states:
I am writing to protest about the proposed freezing and ultimately abolition of the family allowance".
I hope that will not happen. The letter continues:
The family allowance was adjusted, supposedly, to take the place of tax allowances for children and to put some money straight into the hands of the mothers of children instead.
The amount of money involved, especially in the case of these people who have two or three children is not small either, and is a necessary part of a family's income, even when one of the parents is employed. I know that in our family, even with my husband in a good job, the family allowance is essential for paying the bills and is not frittered away on luxuries.
Those are not my words but those of a constituent. She is right.
Had we not made the change from the tax allowance, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham (Sir I. Gilmour) has pointed out, there can be little doubt that the child allowance would have been increased. We can only guess at the sum, but since the

single man's allowance has been increased by 14 per cent. in real terms since 1975 and the married man's allowance by 17 per cent., we can make a reasonable guess that the child allowance would have been increased by about 15 per cent. That compares with a decrease in real terms.
Perhaps we are at a stage when tax allowances are good and benefits are bad. If so, I urge my hon. Friend the Minister to redouble any efforts he is making and to consider reintroducing the tax allowance. However we tackle it, we must find ways of reaching out to people who will lose because of this decision.
I was pleased the other day to hear that the Government hope that the take-up of family credit will be 70 per cent. We all share that hope, particularly against the background of the family income supplement having a take-up of 50 per cent. Only last year the Government expressed the expectation that it would have a 60 per cent. take-up. So even before the benefit has come in, we are on an upward path. Let us hope that the reality meets the Government's expectation.
Whichever figure we take—I will stick to 60 per cent. —it is inescapable that a significant proportion of the poorest families will not benefit from the extra money which the Government are properly putting into family credit, because they will not take the benefit. That is the nub of the concern which I share with a number of my hon. Friends.
We rightly talk much about encouraging people to improve themselves, to gain work where they are unemployed or to get better paid work when they are poorly paid, but they need a platform on which to build. It must not be assumed that we wish to have a society in which every benefit is means-tested. That would be a bad society. I am backed in that view by a very good article a short time ago in The Times by Hermione Parker, who said:
If you look at the arguments in favour of freezing out child benefits or pensions, you find they rest entirely on the immediate advantages of public expenditure savings, without regard for the effects on self-reliance, self-esteem and family life. Already a disproportionate number of families with children are forced to depend on means-tested benefits. Without child benefit still more families would be taxed into poverty during the vitally important years of child-rearing. We would be moving towards the American system where there is no child benefit and where over-reliance on means-tested welfare has produced a massive ever-increasing underclass. To allow the US experience to be repeated in Britain would be unmitigated folly.
I have suggested in the past, as my hon. Friend the Minister knows, that we examine ways of reform. If we do not revert to tax allowances, perhaps we should consider taxing the 5 per cent. of taxpayers who pay at the higher rate. It is only two years since the Government's Green Paper appeared, so we know that the arguments for taxing at the standard rate are not good. The Government rightly dismissed the proposal only two years ago because of the extra administration, among other reasons, and also because it would represent a massive switch of resources from those with children to those without.
I urge some of my hon. Friends not to get too hung up on the elimination of all benefits. There are many more obvious targets—company cars and mortgage interest spring immediately to mind—which go much more than child benefit to the better-off.
Last year even The Economist—scarcely an organ of other than rectitude in spending—pointed out in its conclusion to an article on the whole question of benefits and taxation:
There is only one way to raise take-up and reduce … marginal rates : give the same benefit to everybody. The snag is that some of the cash goes to those who do not 'need' it. True: but three-quarters of families with children have a household-income-per-head that is below average.
Hon. Members who still wish to see child benefit phased out have to take that into account and have to find a way, which I certainly would applaud, of increasing the take-up of any means-tested benefit until it is at or near 100 per cent.
Another area of child benefit which concerns me is the role it plays in many families as an assistance to the woman in the household; sometimes, indeed, it is her only income. Again today—it must be my lucky day—I received a letter from a constituent on this point. She wrote:
This is not a heart-wrenching letter of woe or dire poverty, but a letter from an ordinary constituent, who is also the mother of children under five, asking you not to phase out, means test or tax child benefit. I do not desperately need the money to feed my starving children. I need it for my own sense of pride. It is the only money I can call my own to spend as I want, without prior consultation to my 'bread-winning' husband. The only money I do not have to ask for. Example: 'Pete, the children need new shoes and I need some tampons. Can I have some extra money?' Answer: 'Do they need new shoes again already and I thought you bought some tampons last month.' This is why I want my child benefit (which, incidentally, I think I more than earn). The only alternative is returning to work, If I can find a child-minder and if I can find a job. Anyway, I thought your party wanted to preserve family life.
That constituent, who apparently does not support me, writes in tones that I can endorse and with which I think many of my hon. Friends will find sympathy.
Those of us who support child benefit do not regard ourselves as stuck in the past, to quote what my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said recently. We regard ourselves as willing to embrace new ideas but those ideas must not and cannot be at the expense of some of the poorest in society. For those reasons, sadly I say to my hon. Friend that I shall be unable to support the instruments.

Mr. Ronnie Fearn: I congratulate the hon. Member for Bristol, South (Ms. Primarolo) who gave us a clear understanding of the problems of young people in her constituency. I am sure that we shall hear much more from the hon. Lady. She will be an asset to the House.
By far the most disappointing feature of the uprating order is the decision not to increase child benefit. Many hon. Members have already spoken about that decision, but I should like to emphasise the point. Child benefit is currently £7·25. I am perplexed by the attitude of the Secretary of State, who has made it abundantly clear in speeches and interviews that he wishes to encourage individual independence. The decision not to increase child benefit will have exactly the opposite effect. It undermines the future of child benefit and I believe that it represents a move towards the Secretary of State's preference for means-tested benefits.
The freeze will mean a loss of 30p or 4 per cent. in real terms. To keep up with inflation, the benefit would need to be increased to £7·55. To make up the 35p cut in November 1985, it would need to be increased to £7·90.

The latest cut seems to be the death knell for child benefit. The Government fail to understand that child benefit is an aid to self-reliance because it acts as a base on which families can build. The freeze will draw an extra 10,000 families into dependence on means-tested benefits.
When the Secretary of State announced the shameful decision to peg child benefit at £7·25, he attempted to justify his decision by increasing the funds available for family credit and income support, but families on family credit will not receive extra resources and they will be no better off than if he had decided to increase child benefit in line with inflation. Those on income support will also be compensated for the freeze in child benefit, but, worryingly, in two-parent families this will probably mean a transfer from the mother to the father. One of the best features of child benefit is that it is payable to the caring parent, usually the mother, thus ensuring that the children are really helped by child benefit. Widespread research has shown that problems can arise and that children may not receive the money if the benefit is not paid to the mother.
I am also greatly concerned that the transfer of resources to means-tested benefits will significantly reduce the take-up rate. Another of the good arguments in favour of the retention of child benefit is that it has a remarkable take-up rate of 100 per cent. By contrast, two out of live eligible families will not claim family credit, according to Government figures, and take-up for income support will also be much lower.
I urge the Minister to recognise the merits of child benefit, especially its ability to provide stability despite the fluctuating circumstances of the family's income, and the protection that it provides to children by providing a measure of independent finance for mothers. If the Minister persists in his attempts to move towards means testing, or if he really is contemplating the eventual abolition of child benefit, he will make families more dependent on state benefits, rather than achieving his avowed aim to encourage self-reliance.
My next point deals with the income support flat-rate premium set out in regulations 17 and 18 of part II. The greatest worry to me in the income support scheme is the flat-rate premium system. This will adversely affect thousands of people with disabilities, who will receive less money from income support than they do under the present supplementary benefit scheme. I am not satisfied that the disability premiums will be adequate replacements for the long-term rate of supplementary benefit and the loss of weekly additions.
The main problem with the flat-rate system is that it is geared to the needs of bureaucrats and the convenience of their computers, not to the daily needs of people living with a disability. Will the Minister accept that life is not as neatly ordered in the real world as it is in Whitehall? The real world is filled with individuals with different needs and problems. That is nowhere more true than with disabled people and their difficulties. These various difficulties, whether of a medical nature or concerning their personal circumstances, cannot be accommodated by a flat-rate system. It simply means that some people will inevitably lose and will face great hardship and misery as a result.
The change to income support will mean a loss of between £5 and £50 for thousands of people with disabilities and it will hit the severely disabled worst of all. The restrictive nature of the severe disability premium will cause great difficulties. Many carers will not claim


attendance allowance because that would make the disabled person ineligible for the severe disability premium.
There is a suggestion in the Social Security Bill that, if anyone over the age of 18 stays at the house, the severe disability premium will not be paid. That is quite distressing. The narrow qualifying conditions for disability premiums will disqualify many thousands of people who can claim weekly additions at the moment. I ask the Minister to think again and retain a more flexible and fair system of weekly additions for people with widely differing needs.
According to Government figures, 80,000 people classified as sick and disabled claimants will be worse off as a result of the change to means-tested benefits. If disabled pensioners and disabled people who are unemployed are taken into account, that figure rises to about 500,000 people who will lose as a result of the changes in supplementary benefit. I have been told that there will be more than I million losers as a result of the Social Security Act 1986. That is sad enough, but the fact that so many thousands of those are disabled people, many severely disabled, is an outrage and presents a poor reflection on a supposedly civilised society.

Mrs. Beckett: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Fearn: I am just concluding my remarks.
For the reasons that I have given, we will be voting against the instruments.

Mr. Jacques Arnold: Like the hon. Member for Southport (Mr. Fearn), I first became a Member of the House in June. In common with other hon. Members, I have found that one of the greatest difficulties arises in addressing cases in my surgery, and especially cases involving social security matters. I have come across the very complex regulations and the 16,000 numbered clauses that apply to supplementary benefit. I find it very difficult to understand the regulations and so decide whether the constituent concerned has been treated fairly and in accordance with them. If I could not discover whether my constituent was being treated fairly, what hope had my constituent? Invariably, those constituents are in some difficulties and are not necessarily familiar with so many volumes of regulations and the thousands of clauses.
In the Government's proposals tonight, I am attracted by the opportunity for simplification of the way in which we handle the social security system. I particularly commend the proposals for family credit and its sister benefit, income support. Both those benefits provide a far more comprehensive system of support for those in need in the community. I have examined the various projections and note that the benefits would be at the disposal of no fewer than 470,000 families, which is double the number of families covered under our present system of family income support. That will gather into the net more of those in need on the margins than we provide for at present.
The new system will allow us, in addition, to concentrate resources on those most in need. Now that the figures are coming before the House, it appears that the Government intend to include an additional £200 million in the operation of the two benefits to which I have

referred. That is money over and above the amount that would have been put in had we simply uprated the present supplementary benefit system next year. Any change to a major new system of social security benefits obviously brings gainers and losers. I have been encouraged by the fact that the Government have made detailed provisions for the protection of those who would not be entitled to as much benefit under the new system as they are entitled to at present. Some £200 million will be earmarked for that specific purpose to ensure that those people are not adversely affected.
It is significant that, according to the proposals, more than two thirds of those currently on social security benefit will gain or not be adversely affected by the new system of benefit. Indeed, it is far more interesting to note that one fifth of those on benefit—880,000 people—would gain at least an extra £3. That is a very significant funnelling of support for those most in need. It is also significant to note that one tenth of those families benefiting from social security—430,000 people—whom we could quite rightly describe as the most needy, would gain in excess of £5 a week per family from the Government's reform. That is significant. If we are a nation with a conscience, we should concentrate more resources on those most in need.
Many hon. Members have expressed concern tonight over the non-uprating of child benefit. I must admit that when I heard that child benefit was not to be uprated I regretted that greatly. I assure the House that my wife regretted it even more than I. However, I hope that other hon. Members will ask themselves the question that I asked myself, "Should we as hon. Members, and as well paid people, indiscriminately benefit from uprating, regardless of our income and need?" I have a sneaking suspicion that my family and other better-off families should not necessarily benefit from the resources available to those in need.

Mrs. Beckett: I hope that the hon. Gentleman recognises, in view of his remarks about child benefit, that although he refers to families "indiscriminately benefiting" from the award of child benefit, if instead of child benefit the money is put into tax allowances in relationship to children or in other areas, people like the hon. Gentleman would do a great deal better out of that than out of child benefit? It seems to me that the hon. Gentleman is crying crocodile tears.

Mr. Arnold: That intervention presupposes, if not giving an increase is deemed to be saving, that the resources thus saved are being ploughed back to those least in need. One can go into semantic arguments about the Budget and tax treatment, but when we consider the social security budget now and next year—the subject of this debate—it is significant to see where the increases are to be applied.
I do not see why well-off families should indiscriminately receive the same increase in the same benefit as those families that are most in need. Every hon. Member knows of needy families in their constituency. If the increase was to benefit those most in need, perhaps it would be justified. However, the families most in need which already receive income-related benefit would not benefit from an uprating of child benefit. They would lose pound for pound on their income-related benefits for the increase in child benefit. With the proposal not to uprate, we are not giving an indiscriminate increase to those in


society who are better off, and we are not failing to give an increase to those who are at the bottom of the pile and rely on income-related benefit. Bearing in mind the assumption that the so-called saving will be ploughed back to the rich through the tax allowance, it is significant that the hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett) did not take account of the fact that the concentration of benefit on those most in need in the next financial year is proposed to be £300 million. Against that, we should offset only £120 million for the amount that would have been spent on paying the uprating of child benefit. Not only is the saving going directly to families most in need, but the Government are applying additional resources. That is significant.
When the country, in all conscience, provides resources for families in need and adversity, it is vital to concentrate such resources on those most in need rather than carry out the impossible task of spreading money over the entire community, in the desperate hope that money will somehow find its way through to the needy. It is far more relevant to try to find humane and effective ways of getting benefit to families most in need.

Mr. Jim Cousins: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for allowing me to speak tonight as the new Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, Central. Despite its difficulties, my constituency is well-kept, lively and diverse. Its tradition of inventiveness and skill is equally diverse. Our turbines and one or two beverages are famous. It is not generally known that my constituency gave Andrews liver salts and Lucozade to Britain. I have to report that the Lucozade factory was recently closed down. My constituency still retains a presence in many important aspects of research and enterprise.
The main problem that my constituency faces is under employment. Those who are in work and those who are out of work are well qualified but are not performing at the level of their potential and capacity because there are no plans to realise it. Therefore, the assumption that those on benefits are part of a benefit culture, as the Minister expressed it last week — a sort of lost tribe of the feckless, the incompetent, the dependent and the incorrigible—is deeply objectionable. How can I explain to a highly qualified researcher in my constituency, who, after years of benefit, gets three hours of work a week in a lab and loses all her benefits under the full extent normal rule, that the present Government believe in incentives and the work ethic?
Many of those on income-related benefits do not claim the benefits to which they are entitled. Only recently, the Minister revealed that there are 4 million new supplementary benefit claimants each year. The total number of those on income-related benefits is only 8·5 million. The matter could not be clearer. Claimants are reluctant to claim. They stop claiming as soon as they can.
I am sure that many hon. Members will want to join me in wishing my predecessor, Piers Merchant, well in his new post as director of publicity for Northern Engineering Industries, one of our great Tyneside firms which, according to the statements made last week by the Secretary of State for Energy, is a sunrise industry—or so we hope. At almost exactly this time last year, my predecessor was engaged in his famous experiment of spending a week on the dole. He served his party loyally,

faithfully and well on the Standing Committee which examined the Social Security Bill 1986. When his week was over, he said—all honour to him for saying it—that the key parts of the Bill and the present benefits system were a matter of regret to him.
His conclusions closely bear upon the regulations. He wanted the ill-named long-term rate of supplementary benefit—£12 a week more than the basic rate—to be a true long-term rate. That rate has always been denied to the able-bodied in that wonderful spirit of medieval poor law that is the true ancestor of the regulations. He did not want it to be confined to those who could he regarded as vagabonds. After only a week, Piers saw that extra resources were needed to restore the morale and motivation of the long-term unemployed and that the extra cash would not destroy their work ethic but preserve it.
Regulations 10 and 22 spell out all too clearly the Government's distrust of those on benefit — a distrust which finds expression in high marginal rates of taxation by benefit withdrawal, which have steadily increased during the life of the Government. Such high marginal rates of tax on the least well off are neither fair nor efficient in terms of the workings of the labour market. A Government who pride themselves on deregulation should surely be prepared to deregulate the least well-off. Cuts in single payments will mean more dependence on hostel accommodation and board and lodging, even in the face of the cuts in benefit to the under-25s, yet the possession of a permanent home is a key step to anchoring all of us in the community and restoring us to full membership in it.
Perhaps I should have said, a warm home. The regulations end all the heating additions on which many people, particularly those in the north, depend. My constituency benefits from one of the most sustained local authority heating improvement programmes in Britain. The regulations, on top of the cuts in heating additions of 1985, will make sure that many new radiators will stay switched off.
Piers wanted also to raise the earnings disregards from their present low levels. It is true that the regulations raise the disregards from £4 to £5 a week. That is the first increase for over 10 years. A special disregard of £15 is being introduced, but it is limited to those whom the Government are willing to spare the worse effects of their prejudices—the over-60s who have been on benefit for more than two years, the disabled, and the wonderful collection of special individuals: part-time firemen, auxiliary coastguards, persons engaged part-time in the manning or launching of a lifeboat and a member of any Territorial Army or reserve force. In the interests of simplicity, work incentives and labour market flexibility, why could not the disregards be extended to all?
After one week, Piers Merchant realised that the black economy might be the last refuge of enterprise and motivation for the long-term unemployed. The regulations end the disregard for child care costs, on which the incentive to work of so many low-income women depends.
The Government have already admitted that the projected cuts will introduce a marginal tax rate of 85 to 89 per cent.—94 to 96 per cent. if national insurance contributions are included. That is how the Government seek to imprison people who are on benefit and punish people who have a few savings, a small work pension or


a small income. Will somebody tell me where the 20·8 per cent. net return on capital that is implied in the tariff income schedule of the regulations will be obtained?
Since October 1986, 4 million people have signed on for unemployment benefit and 4·3 million people have signed off. There could not be greater proof that, even where unemployment is highest and of the longest duration, the will to work and some kind of grey labour market is still functioning. Even if it means losing the transitional protection from these regulations, thousands of my constituents will take up short-term employment and, as a consequence, lose their protection. Their lost benefits will swell the coffers for tax cuts for the most wealthy. The Government accord the wealthy incentives that they destroy for the least well off. Without this transitional protection, the structure of benefits makes 43 per cent. of present claimants worse off, according to Government figures, and that includes 700,000 families with children.
These regulations attack the incentives to work and basic neighbourly comforts and principles; they punish savers, deny the respectability of those on benefit and subject their pride and endurance to ever harsher tests.
Conservative Members are concerned about the future of Latin. They will know that radicals go to the root. The Tory radicalism implied in these regulations is tearing up the roots on which British Conservatism depends. As good Socialists, we shall vote against these regulations, but I hope that wise Conservatives who have an eye to the future will join us in destroying them.

Mr. Tim Boswell: It is a pleasure to follow the maiden speech of the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, Central (Mr. Cousins), for a number of personal reasons. First, it seems only a short time since I made my maiden speech; secondly, I have considerable affection for Newcastle; and, thirdly, he paid such a generous and extended tribute to his predecessor, Piers Merchant. It is some index of my newness in the House that I do not remember Piers, but the hon. Gentleman could not have quoted him or brought him to our attention more clearly. The hon. Gentleman made a model speech; it was clear, elegant and not without controversy. He was trenchant and put his points in a manner that we enjoyed. We shall look forward to hearing from him in the future.
Although she is absent, I congratulate the hon. Member for Bristol, South (Ms. Primarolo) on her maiden speech. She also was clear and we look forward to her presence on the Social Security Bill in Committee as well as in the Chamber.
In the short time that I have been here I have spoken once on social security regulations. It was seasonally inapposite, because we were discussing the Christmas bonus in the middle of July. I hope to return to that subject in the future, but on that occasion I made some remarks about the principles of uprating.
I shall begin by discussing the issues on the uprating order and then make one or two more specific, targeted points about particular aspects of the regulations.
Uprating is bound to be our main concern, because it is our most expensive. This represents a straightforward, proper and adequately foreshadowed benefit increase, unlike the measure of tergiversation of system that

afflicted Opposition Members when they were in government, as to whether to estimate in advance or rectify in arrears. In both cases they fell behind.
There have been two significant changes in our approach to social security upratings and overall upratings in particular. For many years—probably since 1909 and Lloyd George—we have been dominated by the Lloyd George model of retirement provision. We have considered matters in terms of a state-provided basic pension, without considering the overall income position of retired people. The position has changed with the growth of the occupational or state earnings-related pension. These additional elements now amount, on average, to about half the total provision for pensioners and have almost caught up with the basic retirement pension. In a year or two, they will cross over, which is why the real increase in pensioners' incomes of 2 per cent. per year has been greater than that of the population at large, although both have been significant.
When that happens, we will have to acknowledge that it leaves a problem for those who are dependent on the basic retirement pension. We all met such people during the election campaign, and we hear from them now. By definition, they tend to be older pensioners who have retired for a longer period. I hope that, in the long term, Ministers will consider uplifting pensions with that target category in mind. Perhaps we could consider an increase in pensions at the age of 75, when the chances of part-time work are reduced but when costs are increasing and mobility diminishing. Perhaps we could consider clawing that back on a tapered basis against occupational pensions.
The second general matter is the inexorable onward march of demographic factors. I received a helpful written answer from the Minister this week. I asked him about the number of pensions in payment and their average amount ; the figures were rather striking. I asked the Minister to take the period 1979–80 and estimate its comparison with 1988–89 on the uprated basis. In the earlier period, among men, there were 3·04 million retirement pensioners receiving an average of £21·13 a week. There are now some 200,000 more—3·22 million—receiving £40·80 a week. Among women—these figures are not invidious but remarkable—the number of pensions in payment have increased from 5·47 million at an average of £19·94 a week to 6·12 million at an average of £38·40 a week. There has been a substantial increase in the number of retirement pensions. That partly accounts for the Government's problem of not being able to uprate more than to keep pace with inflation.
I shall put the figures on a weekly basis, because that brings out their salience for individuals and for the Government. The weekly cost has gone up from £179 million by 104 per cent., so that retirement pensions now cost £366 million a week. In 1979–80, the average payment was £21·01. A further 825,000 people now receive a pension, and the average payment is £39·22. If those people, God bless them, had not appeared on the scene and the money had been redistributed to the number of people receiving pensions in 1979–80, we would now be in a position to pay a basic retirement pension averaging out at £43–02 a week—which would put pensioners nearly £4 a week ahead in real terms.
Let me put those figures in global terms and annualise them. The cost of the completely unacknowledged, unvoted and inevitable increase in the number of


pensioners has been approximately £1·7 billion a year in additional pension provision. That is why it is difficult for any Government to promise large increases in the overall retirement pension.
I come now to the more detailed points that I wish to raise—

Mr. Tom Clarke: The figures that the hon. Gentleman provided from the Minister's letter were extremely interesting. To give the House the complete picture, can the hon. Gentleman tell us the contributions that those pensioners made? After all, he is talking about a contributory pension scheme.

Mr. Boswell: That is a relevant factor because, as we all know, we pay as we go and have done since Lloyd George the general issue is that, for a number of reasons— including reasons to which Opposition Members have drawn attention, although they may be less ready to do so today—the number of contributors at any one time has not increased. We are paying more, on a more or less static base. If the hon. Gentleman wishes to pursue the matter, the figures are in the written answer, to which he may wish to refer.
Let me again put down a marker regarding haemophiliacs infected with the AIDS virus. One of the requests of the Haemophilia Society is that there should be a measure of weekly payments to such people. As the House knows, my hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire, South (Mr. Cormack) has a prominent interest in the matter. With a number of supporters from all parties he has tabled a early-day motion as part of the pressure on the Government, to which there are now signs of a helpful response. I know from experience the arguments that officials will advance about the dangers of setting a precedent. I am certainly prepared to concede to the Government the principle that the settlement must take place but should be ring-fenced so that it does not create a precedent.
I note that the regulations provide for a proper regime of deductions direct from benefits in cases of debt—for example, to electricity boards, or electricity companies as they may well be in the future. I welcome that, while making the point that it is generally better to pay people their entitlements and get them to settle their obligations. We have a problem with my very go-ahead local electricity board the East Midlands electricity board, which will supply card meters so that people can work out their budgets for themselves. Unfortunately, one of my district councils will not have the meters installed in its houses because it is frightened that if they are not recharged with a prepaid card the gas central heating system will be interfered with. The provision is a second best, but the Government are right to make it.
I have two points that have a bearing on various kinds of disability. I understand that there can be a substantial administrative delay in paying invalidity care allowance, which has a knock-on effect on social security. One of my constituents retired in August and his pension entitlement in respect of his wife was reduced because his wife had received an invalidity care allowance for a few weeks in February. For some reason, those payments were still in the computer and the local office had to make a temporary adjustment, but the matter has still not been put on a formal basis.
Finally, I refer to the problem of a constituent of mine in relation to benefit payable to people in nursing homes.

The House will bear with me if I do not cite the details, for reasons that will become apparent. My constituent has, and had before retirement, spinal arthritis, and is effectively completely immobilised. She went into a home in my constituency in January. The DHSS was paying her the full uplifted benefit of £230 a week. Her son-in-law and family wished to move elsewhere. It was discovered., I think, in anticipation of that fact, that she should have been paid the lower rate of £175. There was no question of the local office—with which I have had no difficulty —reducing her benefits to the lower rate retrospectively, but the office properly said that it could not pay out benefit at an incorrect rate and wished to make the adjustment with immediate effect.
The lady was extremely ill and that would have meant moving her to another home and moving her again when her family moved elsewhere. The alternative was that the family be saddled with a debt of £55 a week. I am afraid that the problem was overcome by the expedient—if that is the right word—of recertifying her as terminally ill, which is why I did not wish to give her name. It would help if, without setting a precedent, such cases could be dealt with with some administrative flexibility in local offices, to avoid automatic deductions.
Social security is now a gigantic business. One third of our total budget is committed to it. The onward march of demography makes it inevitable that there will be an onward march of cost. We cannot find resources for additional measures such as those to which I have referred, without at least considering the possibility of making changes elsewhere, which may reduce expenditure in certain respects. If that is done because the needs have changed, I welcome it, and I welcome in particular the Government's readiness to grasp some of the nettles and make some necessary changes.

Rev. Martin Smyth: I apologise to the House for not having heard the opening speeches, so I cannot really comment on them. No doubt the hon. Member for Daventry (Mr. Boswell) received a helpful reply from the Minister.
While I was preparing for the debate I sought some information from the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. I asked whether I could have a table relating to Northern Ireland such as has been supplied in respect of Britain. I received the unhelpful answer, "We don't have those figures in that form. We shall be applying the scheme in Northern Ireland in the same way as in England arid Wales but with a little bit more emphasis on the family." That seems rather absurd, as I understand that social services are applied equally throughout the kingdom.
I recognise the last point made by the hon. Member for Daventry. It does not seem to be an isolated use of the practice of classifying people as terminally ill. That highlights one of the problems of our social security scheme. I know of a nursing home that had to increase its tariffs. The DHSS was not in a position to pay the higher rate until a kindly local doctor certified the resident concerned as terminally ill. I submit that we are all entitled to receive such a diagnosis because we are all under a sentence of death. That highlights a problem of equality and the proper use of funds in social service provisions.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, Central (Mr. Cousins) on his maiden speech. H e shared with us some insights into his constituency. I have


to admit that I would have preferred to see some of the other bottled stuff go to the wall rather than Lucozade. The hon. Gentleman's tribute to his predecessor was well made. I do not know whether I would be right in hoping that he might receive the same sort of promotion as his predecessor. I should like to think that the hon. Gentleman's argument on behalf of his constituents and the people who need social security will not merit the same fate at the polls as Piers Merchant received.
I see two particular problems. First, an increase of funding for social security has been mentioned and I understand that there seems to have been a fair bit of clawback in the past because funds have not been used. When we make apparent provision, are we really making sure that those who require it and ought to have it are receiving it? Secondly, how is it that so many of us in the House, especially Conservative Members, seem to be persuaded that we are benefiting the most needy in our society, when those who labour in voluntary societies and care groups tell us that it is at that level of provision that the most needy will be suffering?
During the Secretary of State's statement on the changes I asked him whether he thought it wrong that in April 1988 people would be worse off than they are now if they seek to make provision for the needy. He responded with a reference to the upgrading of the provision which a person is entitled to receive before becoming ineligible for supplementary benefit. However, I was dealing with a problem that I am convinced all hon. Members have had to face in the past and, I suspect, will have to face in the future. With the upgrading of the pension, some people will be brought out of the range of housing benefit and other assistance. Therefore, in April 1988 they will be worse off than they are now, but the Government have said that there has been an increase in inflation. Sooner or later we have to grapple with the problem of how we can provide for those in genuine need without penalising others and making them less well off.
It is nice in the Chamber when we talk about the provisions we make and argue that we do not need child benefit and so on. However, in the world outside, there are many who do need that. I hope that before long, as the scheme comes into operation, we will bend our minds in an effort to provide aid for those who need it and not clawback or make provision on the cheap.
Reference has been made to the clawback provision for invalid care allowance. A woman who provides support in the home is entitled to invalid care allowance. However, if her husband claims for invalid care allowance she will not receive it. Therein lies a failure of the past that should be rectified in the future. It is desperate that an enlightened society should say glibly that it is doing its best to help the needy in society. The best is not good enough. We ought to do better. When we are seeking to remove funds from some sections to help others I suspect that we face the condemnation of the Master himself who said:
These ought ye to have done, and not to leave the other undone.
I plead that we care for the needy.

Sir George Young: I should like to underline the comments made by the hon. Member for Belfast, South (Rev. M. Smyth), who congratulated the two

maiden speakers. The hon. Members for Newcastle upon Tyne, Central (Mr. Cousins) and for Bristol, South (Ms. Primarolo) both spoke with a confidence and composure that few of us can recall displaying when we made our maiden speeches in the House, whenever that was. I look forward to hearing from them both in the near future.
I endorse what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Mr. Boswell) about the state retirement pension. My hon. Friend the Minister made the point well that, as occupational pension schemes bite, as more people are able to make provision during their working lives for their retirement, and as the value of savings increases, so fewer pensioners are totally dependent on the state retirement pension. Perhaps I was just unlucky during the recent election campaign, but all the pensioners on whom I called happened to be among the minority who still depend solely on the state retirement pension.
One has to remember that in 1979 we told that group that the country was going through a difficult time, that we were trying to get the economy right and that we would uprate their pensions in line with prices so that there was no deterioration in their standard of living. Happily, things are now better. They can see that the economy has improved, and I hope that at some time in the years ahead we will enable those whose only income is the state retirement pension to enjoy the living standards that the economic policies have brought about and which nearly everyone else is now enjoying, but which they cannot enjoy because they are too old to return to work. The scheme floated by my hon. Friend the Member for Daventry is worth exploring, because that section of our community is in danger of being bypassed by the economic prosperty that is beginning to flow over the rest of us.
I should like to concentrate my remarks on child benefit. I underline some of the reservations of at least two of my hon. Friends. The Minister made the best possible defence of the Government's decision to freeze child benefit, but it was incomplete, because, inevitably, he looked at it through the eyes of a Minister responsible for social security who has a large number of claims on his budget and is under pressure to keep public expenditure down. Therefore, he is obliged to try to "target" his budget as effectively as possible. It is wrong to look at child benefit solely through the eyes of such a Minister.
One has to look at the origin of child benefit, because it is not just a social security benefit. It was a child tax allowance. I was one of the two Front-Bench spokesmen for the Conservative party when the child benefit was introduced. In fact, it was the first leg of a tax credit scheme devised by the outgoing Conservative Administration in 1974. Certainly it was never in the minds of those who spoke for the Conservative party in 1976 that the new child benefit would be viewed narrowly, as it is apparently being viewed now as a social security measure, totally disowning its ancestry as a tax allowance.
The political litmus paper turns one colour if we say that the money is really a child tax allowance, and another if we call it part of public expenditure. We have become slightly confused by the fact that child benefit is lumped with social security. Its treatment is dealt with during the autumn public expenditure round instead of, as would have happened if it were treated as a tax allowance, in the more expansive mood that seems to come over the Government during the spring when they draw up their Budget proposals.
If we look at child benefit, we see both its tax parentage —it is tax-free and universal—and its social security parentage—it is a cash payment paid by the order book through the post office. My hon. Friend the Minister was right when he said that if it is a social security benefit it should be targeted. However, that prompts the question whether it was ever right for it to be a child tax allowance. I am very much of the view that it was.
It is a basic principle of taxation that no individual should begin to pay tax until he has managed to discharge his basic obligations to house, clothe and feed himself. Hence we have the personal allowance of about £2,500, below which no one should pay tax. When a person marries and his wife does not work he receives the married person's allowance, which recognises the additional obligations that he incurs if he has a wife to support. Child tax allowance was a wholly logical extension of that principle, recognising that a taxpayer with children had responsibilities and obligations, and that his ability to pay tax was less than that of another taxpayer with no such responsibilities. That important principle was maintained when we introduced child benefit — a principle of horizontal equity between taxpayers with children and those without. Now it is in danger of being eroded by the decision to freeze child benefit.
I understand that that was a pragmatic decision, in the rather narrow context of how we should spend the resources available within the social security system. However, there is no logic behind it. If we say that it is a child tax allowance, it should be uprated in line with the personal allowance or the married man's allowance. If, on the other hand, we consider it a social security benefit, we should target it and progressively phase it out. The party seems to be marking time while it decides on the future of child benefit.
While the money at stake this year may seem relatively small — 30p a week — there is an important principle behind it. Many Conservative Members share my anxieties. I hope that that principle of trying to secure equity between taxpayers with children and those without will not he entirely abandoned, because I fear that that would lead to inequity in our society.
I leave those thoughts with my hon. Friend the Minister, who, I know, fights his corner as hard as he can. Many of my remarks are addressed to the Treasury rather than to my hon. Friend. Nevertheless, as well as that 30p, an important principle is at stake.

Mrs. Alice Mahon: Let me begin by congratulating my hon. Friends the Members for Newcastle upon Tyne, Central (Mr. Cousins) and for Bristol, South (Ms. Primarolo) on their excellent maiden speeches. I was particularly impressed with their defence of people who will really need champions when the regulations come into force.
I listened carefully to the Minister when he talked about significant changes, which he said were necessary. I wish to challenge that: I think that they represent one of the most vicious attacks on the welfare state and the benefit system that we have witnessed since the war. There has been a steady erosion of benefits, coupled with growing unemployment and more people falling into poverty. For a time, there was a kind of consensus; now it has been

broken. The Green Paper that led to what we are discussing tonight heralded the change. It warned us of the return to pre-war conditions.
My hon. Friend the Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) highlighted a point on which I interrupted the Minister: the complicated nature of benefits. My hon. Friend observed that there were five different claims according to age. Yet, when I asked the Minister about the social fund, he said that it would be easier and simpler. I have been talking to social workers who are horrified at the proposed changes. They say, along with most of the groups representing benefit claimants — the Minister has not convinced me that they are wrong and he is right—that, although the present system is not perfect and is certainly far too complicated, it is at least possible to look up one's entitlement in regulation. That will not be possible with the social fund. Benefit will then be discretionary, and we shall become involved in definitions of the deserving and the undeserving poor. Let me give some examples.
I keep asking myself what the young have done that the present Government find so horrific. The attack on them is unbelievable. A young, unemployed single woman who moved into privately let unfurnished accommodation last summer, who was in receipt of supplementary benefit, had no savings and had previously lived with her parents, applied for a single payment for a cooker, bed and bedding. Her application was refused. Cookers, beds and bedding can still be claimed by those whom the Government consider deserving, but the young seem to be caught in the trap that the Government have set for them.
Another example brought to my attention concerns a woman confined to a wheelchair. She was a paraplegic, and she needed a new carpet. Wheelchairs wear out carpets very quickly. She was told that miscellaneous items such as curtains, floor coverings, tables and chairs must now be paid for out of the fixed £75 miscellaneous furniture grant, and that she therefore did not qualify. In 1988, when the regulations become law, we shall enter an era in which that will become more and more common.
The Minister talked about extra help for pensioners, but the reality is different. I have a note from the various groups who look after pensioners and the disabled. There is a list of seven groups: the Disablement Alliance, Mencap, the Spastics Society and other reputable voluntary organisations whose employees have devoted a lifetime to trying to improve conditions for the elderly and those with disabilities. The note says:
It is clear that many disabled people who register after April 1988 will be trying to manage on less money than those in identical circumstances who are claiming before that date. This is mainly because of the abolition of the long-term supplementary benefit rate and the weekly additional requirements payments, many of which are related to ill health or disability.
The next bit reminds me of what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Livingston:
Working on the expected assumption that 40 per cent. of pensioners are disabled, disability organisations calculate from the Government's own figures that at least 40 per cent. of newly disabled pensioners and at least 15 per cent. of newly disabled younger people will be worse off under the new system.
The note then mentions a staggering figure:
236,000 newly disabled pensioners will lose up to £5 a week and 44 newly disabled pensioners will lose £5 a week or more.
When I first read that, I thought that it could not be true, but those are the facts. That will be the result of what we


are talking about tonight. That is the real world for hundreds of thousands of people who look to us in Parliament to do something for them.
The Minister talked about our sterile approach, and said that Labour Members were defending the status quo. I refute the former, but agree with the latter. The present benefit system is inadequate. Many millions of people have fallen into poverty, sometimes into dire poverty. Those who have served on local councils will have listened to the problems of many people with rent arrears. I once heard poverty described as being like standing up to one's neck in water: if a wave came, one drowned.
Anyone who hears a constituent blame his rent arrears on the need to travel to the other end of the country for a funeral will know that a rail fare can mean the difference between somebody coping and getting into debt. If Conservative Members came face to face with such cases and knew of the choices that people living on benefits have to make, they would have some understanding of their problems and would certainly join us in the Lobby tonight.
I took part in the consultation group for the Green Paper on the so-called reform of social security. Our council—a hung council—was persuaded that people should be alerted about what would be one of the most fundamental changes to the benefit system. Nobody whom we consulted thought that this so-called reform was a good idea, and, as the months and years have gone by, many more people have come to that conclusion.
Conservative Members have admonished the Minister for not uprating child benefit. It will be interesting to see whether they have cried crocodile tears or whether they will join us in the Lobby tonight. I am a great believer in people acting according to the beliefs that they have declared publicly. I may be cynical, coming from a hung council where I have had to listen to opposition parties who have always run my local council, at least for the past eight years, saying one thing in a public place and then voting the other way. It would be the height of hypocrisy if those Conservative Members who have spoken against these measures do not vote with us tonight. They have made their representations on behalf of many of their constituents who will be desperately worried because child benefit is not being uprated.
The Government's shameful treatment of young people has already been well outlined by my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, South. The young are the precious seedcorn of Britain's future. They are the seedcorn upon which our very prosperity is based. What kind of values do we offer them, when we say that they are not even human beings in their own right but dependants? Young adults are being treated as dependants and that is shameful, as well as giving them a most undignified status.
I asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what information he had on the number of people who had died during the last year while an application for an attendance allowance was being considered or was in the process of appeal. I was told that that information was not recorded as a matter of course and could be extracted only at disproportionate cost. I suspect that that disproportionate cost has meant death to quite a few people in that queue.
On behalf of the millions of claimants in Britain, I pledge that the Labour Party will fight these proposals every inch of the way. We will fight them line by line and

we will expose Conservative Members' hypocrisy every time they stand up and say that they are in favour of uprating child benefit if they do not vote with us.

Mr. Stephen Day: I congratulate the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, Central (Mr. Cousins) on his eloquence. His sincerity was obvious. I found one part of his speech particularly interesting and I shall allude to it later.
The hon. Member for Halifax (Mrs. Mahon) is a caring individual. That was obvious from what she said. However, it is distressing to be told that the benefit system is inadequate. That allegation is always made from Opposition Benches. Whatever any Government do, it is always too little. I remind the hon. Lady that the system that the Government are trying to reform, with all its faults, is largely the system that previous Labour Governments have tolerated for years.

Mr. John Battle: Have not the recent Social Security Bill and some of the regulations now being presented been introduced precisely because the Government failed when they passed the Social Security Act 1986? Members of the other place advised the Government that if they did not amend that measure they would have to revise it again and again. Is that not the source of the present discontent?

Mr. Day: No, that is not the case. That is the hon. Gentleman's interpretation of events. I was referring to the long history of social services provision in Britain, the bulk of which, in many areas, is as it was under various Labour Governments.
The regulations and the reforms that the Government have in mind are long overdue. I hope that Opposition Members will at least be able to agree with me on that. We need a much simpler system for claimants. Many of us know from our surgeries of the difficulties of our constituents in understanding the system, and, when they have mastered that, the difficulties that arise from making claims. We must do our best to alleviate such problems. One of the aims of the new provisions is to try to improve that situation.

Mrs. Audrey Wise: How will the hon. Gentleman answer his constituents who make claims on the social fund only to be told that, although their claims are justified, there is simply no money left? Many of us would be grateful for some advice, because we do not know how to answer such people.

Mr. Day: I should have thought that Labour Members would have no difficulty in answering such questions. They will undoubtedly exploit the situation to achieve the best possible advantage. When people come to see me and state such cases, I shall refer them to the local offices, which are extremely helpful about such matters.
I must add that one of the reasons why I wish the reforms to go through is that I have heard my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State describe the present system as intimidatory. That is one of its big problems. The system is difficult not only for people who wish to receive benefit but for those who work in the Department and deal with claimants on a day-to-day basis. They try to present to them their claims and benefits as they would wish them


to be offered to them — as a civilised and humane service. The Bill and its reforms are important in that regard also.

Mrs. Wise: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Day: No. I am sorry, but I shall not give way again.
The new system will assist many people who are currently caught in the so-called poverty trap, which undoubtedly exists. It will remove the disincentives to working that result from that trap. I do not blame anybody who chooses not to take a job if he can gain more from benefits. We must be able to encourage people to take work if we can.
I have argued on many platforms, not least during the general election, that the benefit system should exist for those who need its services and not for the convenience of those who draft legislation and those who must work it. Too many of the present schemes that supposedly assist claimants have become almost sacred cows to many Opposition Members, sanctified not by their efficiency and effectiviness, but by the fact of their existence. Therefore, I welcome the Government's courage in setting about the reform of our benefit system in such a serious and, more important, practical manner.
It is an unavoidable consequence of any reform that some will gain but some will lose. The system has not yet been devised—it will never be devised—that provides extra benefits for everybody.

Mr. Battle: The hon. Gentleman has stated repeatedly that the system has not been revised, but his own Government make great play of the fact that they have given us the biggest review of the welfare state since Beveridge. These instruments simply implement the review. Either there has not been a review and we should start again or the hon. Gentleman is challenging his own Minister to say that the review was a failure, which is our point.

Mr. Day: If the hon. Gentleman has inferred from what I have said that there has not been a review, I must say that I cannot find anywhere in my address where I said that. That is a lax interpretation of what I have been saying.
As I have said, an unavoidable consequence of any review is that we cannot devise a system where everybody will gain. I am sure that, if anybody could have devised such a system, some politician somewhere would have thought of it. However, that is not the case.
When I consider the details of the reforms and the net beneficiaries, I am pleased to see that on the income support scheme nearly two thirds of claimants will gain or be materially unaffected by it; nearly one fifth—more than 750,000 people—will gain by more than £3 a week and nearly one tenth of claimants—500,000 people—will gain by £5 per week or more. That is important because the emphasis of the reforms is to see that the extra money goes to those who need it. I shall back that all the way. It is one reason why I shall support the Social Security Bill. It is right that the people who are most desperately in need should be the ones who receive the benefit. That is what the Bill is designed to do.
Although Opposition Members have said that 40 per cent. of pensioners will not be direct beneficiaries, 60 per cent. will gain or be unaffected. Despite what Opposition Members have said, I welcome that fact. More important, I welcome especially the proposal to increase from £3,000

to £6,000 the amount of savings that somebody is allowed to have and still receive benefit. That must be welcomed, because time and again people come to me who cannot receive benefits because they have been careful and prudent and saved for their retirement. One of the big problems that many pensioners face is that during the years of the previous Labour Government they found that their savings had reduced in value to almost nothing.

Mr. Eric S. Heifer: You are joking.

Mr. Day: No, it is a fact. I am not joking at all. If Opposition Members are saying that they do not have many pensioners coming to see them to say that their savings have been destroyed, especially during the 1970s, pensioners must not be going to see them for some reason or another.

Mr. Frank Field: When pensioners come to our surgeries it will be useful for us to know the answer that the hon. Gentleman will give to those pensioners who have saved a capital sum but who find themselves now disqualified from housing benefit.

Mr. Day: Raising the amount will mean that many pensioners will be much better off. There are no two ways about that. I am not sure of the exact number who will be affected, but many pensioners will receive benefit who have not done so before because they were disqualified. That must be good, and I would support the change if only for that reason.
I welcome the fact that the Government have honoured and are honouring their pledge to maintain the value of the state pension. Conservative Governments have improved the state pension in real terms since coming to power in 1979. I am well aware of the criticism from Opposition Members—not least because they are concerned about pensioners — that we have not assisted pensioners. However, the facts speak for themselves. By and large, pensioners are almost 10 per cent. better off in real terms than they were when the Government came to power. 'That is taking inflation and everything else into account. Whatever criticism Opposition Members may have about that, the Government's record on state pensions stands the test against that of the previous Labour Government.
The Labour Government based their upratings of state pensions not on actual prices, but on the amount by which they expected prices to rise. As I have already mentioned, we all know what happened to prices under the previous Labour Government. Consequently, pensioners fell constantly behind. Indeed, it is tempting to reflect that the party that constantly accuses us of not caring has, in many areas of welfare, a worse record than ours. To say that one cares — I do not dispute for a moment that Labour Members care—is not enough. I believe that Labour Members should at least give us credit and agree that we also care although we may disagree about the ways in which to achieve the results that we should all like to see.
A Government who supposedly did not care would not have fulfilled their pledge to maintain the value of pensions or increase spending on benefits for the elderly in real terms by some 29 per cent. since coming to office. We may argue about the details, but it is an unchallengeable statement that the Government are spending 29 per cent more in real terms. I notice that Labour Members rarely allude to that side of the equation.
I applaud the regulations and the reforms, but there is one desirable provision that I feel has been omitted and I hope that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will give some thought to it. I trust that the Government will look at the specific needs of the long-term unemployed, especially those who are of an age when they desire to work—I believe that the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, Central alluded to this — and have the ability to work, but have only a slim chance of gaining work in anything except in a part-time job. However, in such a job they will lose the benefits available to them. In an age when we see a widening gap between the official retirement age, especially for men, and the effective retirement age, I hope that the Government will look at that problem in a favourable light.

9 pm

Mr. Nigel Griffiths: The Minister claims that the regulations will allow benefits to be targeted, especially for the disabled. I have studied the regulations and I have talked to disabled people—a teenager with spina bifida, a couple with two mentally handicapped children, a kidney dialysis patient, and pensioners with arthritis or bronchitis—who will lose. They are the very people at whom the Government seek to target benefits but all of them will lose if any claim is submitted after April.
On 27 October 1987 the Secretary of State made a statement to the House. When I claimed that disabled people claiming after April stood to lose substantial amounts, he said:
disabled organisations—will have noticed that there is a substantial overall increase for the disabled from this restructuring."—[Official Report, 27 October 1987; Vol. 121, c. 194.]
It is a pity that the Secretary of State is not here to confirm that he has received letters from such organisations repudiating his statement.
The Secretary of State claims that his proposals have the support of organisations representing the disabled, but not one organisation that has studied the regulations supports the Secretary of State, and the reasons are plain to see. From April, as a new claimant, an 18-year-old spina bifida sufferer in a wheelchair, currently eligible for help with heating, clothing, baths and laundry, will lose £5·90 a week from her personal allowance and £4·70 from the total package of incomes to which she is currently entitled. The Government call that caring.
Let us look at a pensioner couple. One has Parkinson's disease—there are quarter of a million sufferers—and the other has arthritis and bronchitis. Currently they can claim £113 a week, including paid help for a couple of hours a day. I have studied the Government schemes, and even at their most generous they will provide such a couple who claim after next April with £70.05. The Government are robbing them of £2,236 a year and call it targeting.
What are the Government going to do for the mentally handicapped? A couple with two mentally handicapped, hyperactive children, who are not disabled, can currently claim £110 in allowances. How much more will the Government give them under the income support entitlement? Will it be £5, £10 or £20? Sadly, no. That couple, claiming after April, will lose £15 for each child—£30 in all.
In effect, more than 1 million disabled people will lose. That is not my opinion, but that of the Royal National Institute for the Blind, Arthritis Care, Mencap, the British Deaf Association, the Renal Society and over 70 other organisations in the Disability Alliance.
On the day of the statement, the Secretary of State said that my points were reasonable. Perhaps he will now confirm that they are also true. In future years, new claimants will suffer considerable cuts. More than 360,000 people now receive laundry allowances. There will be a saving of £42 million if those are abolished. Sixty-nine thousand people receive allowances for baths; nearly £7 million will be saved by the Government cutting that. Sixty-three thousand people get help with clothing; more than £5·5 million will be saved. Six thousand people visit relatives in hospital, and £1·5 million will be saved on that. One hundred and sixty-four thousand disabled people receive heating help. That now costs the Government £49 million, and represents part of a £400 million cut. Two thousand eight hundred people on kidney dialysis receive help with their diets, and more than £1·5 million will be saved on that as part of an £18 million cut that is being forced on the disabled. Four thousand five hundred people and more will lose up to £48 a week for domestic assistance if the Government's cuts go through. Three thousand five hundred blind people will also lose.
None of this comes as a surprise to any of us. We know the origins of today's regulations. They are to be found in a book written in the 1970s—the bible of the blue rinses, the handbook of the hatchet men. It is called "Down with the Poor". Its author, the right hon. Member for Brent, North (Sir R. Boyson), received a knighthood for services to his cause. He is the architect of Tory social security policy today. His hon. Friends are giving a clear message to the handicapped: "We cannot afford the costs of your disability." To the kidney patients on dialysis they are saying: "Your diet and laundry allowances are too costly." To the frail pensioner they are saying: "This country cannot afford your heating or your baths."
We say to the Government that people who do not have work want support, not suffering, and that people who are disabled deserve a decent standard of living. The Government are not providing that, and they have no intention of doing so. It is not that they do not have the money. They have funds with which to give shareholders a shelf and they have cash to cut taxes for the wealthy. They have pounds to promote privatisation, but nothing for the poor, the sick, the disabled or the elderly. That is why we reject these spiteful, penny-pinching regulations —and so does the country.

Mr. Neil Hamilton: I was interested by the reference made by the hon. Member for Edinburgh, South (Mr. Griffiths) to a splendid book that I remember from the days of my youth — "Down with the Poor". It appears that he did not get much further than reading the title, which was taken from something said by George Bernard Shaw, who looked forward to the abolition of poverty. So my right hon. Friend the Member for Brent, North (Sir R. Boyson) meant that he looked forward to the day when we could eliminate poverty altogether. That is the aim behind the scheme adumbrated in the book, and I believe that the Government's proposals go some way towards achieving it.

Mr. Nigel Griffiths: I am interested in the hon. Gentleman's interpretation of the title. Perhaps he would like to interpret the following statement :
There is also encouragement for the lower paid with large families to become unemployed or to go sick".

Mr. Hamilton: Most people in this country would regard that as a commonplace truth. Even under the reformed regulations for social security, we still have what is called the poverty trap. There is a considerable disincentive to work at certain levels of income. It is still possible to be worse off in work than on benefit. It is a tribute to the vast majority of people in this country that so many of them continue to work when they might be better off on benefit. That is a great tribute to what we used to call the working classes.
I want to provide an even greater incentive for people not to be subject to what Mrs. Hermione Parker has called the "moral hazard" of being on benefits. What we are trying to do in the reforms that we have introduced, which I hope will go further, is to encourage greater independence and re-create what I believe to have been the great Victorian values of long ago, when people were able to look after themselves without being dependent on charity and could take decisions for themselves rather than receiving benefits in kind. The social security reforms that we have already produced go a long way towards achieving that.

Mrs. Beckett: The hon. Gentleman has said some things on which I might take issue as a matter of practice. If he feels, as I do, that it is wrong for people to be dependent on what is, in effect, charity and that they should rather have independence and rights, may I recommended that he reads the social fund manual?

Mr. Hamilton: I am sure that the hon. Lady's interpretation of the social fund manual would be slightly different from mine. We still have some way to go before we achieve the objectives that we have set ourselves. The problems with the welfare state is that we still adopt the blunderbuss approach rather than the more targeted approach. We have gone a great part of the way towards ensuring the efficiency of the welfare state by targeting benefits at those in greatest need.
We will never have a system of 100 per cent. perfection, but we have made significant improvements that will bring about a considerable rise in the standards of living of people on the lowest incomes. I welcome the income support regulations, because overall they will considerably benefit people on the lowest incomes. Nearly two thirds of them will either gain or be unaffected in real terms. As my hon. Friend the Member for Cheadle (Mr. Day) said, almost one fifth—that is nearly 900,000 people—will gain £3 or more in real terms and one tenth—almost 500,000 people—will gain £5 or more in real terms.
These regulations target the benefits more to the needs of families with children. From the comments by the Opposition, one would never dream that we were doing that. One or two of my hon. Friends have also made such comments and I propose to devote some attention to them. We are targeting benefits more on families with children. The effect of what we propose is that 86 per cent. of couples below pension age and with children and 67 per cent. of single parents will gain in real terms or will be unaffected. That is a considerable achievement and a

tribute to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, whom I welcome back to the debate, and to my other hon. Friends in his Department.
The regulations will increase spending that would have taken place by more than £200 million. Therefore we are doing a great deal more than simply uprating the supplementary benefit weekly payments, and that will be of great assistance to people on the lowest incomes. In addition, we will provide another £200 million to cover the transitional period. The scheme of income support is greatly superior to the scheme that it replaces, because it provides a real incentive to people to become independent of state provision. There was very little incentive for that up to now. However, people who still depend on state provision will receive it in a way that is not a considerable disincentive to work.
The principal change is the one for the calculation of benefit on the basis of net earnings rather than gross earnings. I endorse what my hon. Friend the Member for Cheadle said about the change in the capital regulations. For years, one has heard complaints about inflation from people in surgeries and especially from people one meets when canvassing on doorsteps. These are people with relatively small nest eggs built up in times when a pound was a pound. As my hon. Friend the Member for Cheadle ably said, at one time a pound in one's pocket was worth a pound but we all know what happened to it in the 1960s and the 1970s, under Conservative as well as Labour Governments.
The hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) said that it was a joke to say that people's capital had been whittled away over the years. We know very well that today a pound is worth only a tiny fraction of what it was 40 years ago. Many pensioners have been able to save and accumulate a tidy nest egg in money terms, but its value has been whittled away almost to a valueless sum as a result of the inflationary policies of successive Governments — though, happily, not the present Government.

Mr. Heffer: The hon. Gentleman, like his hon. Friends, should take note of what hon. Members actually say. I said, "Is the hon. Gentleman joking?" I did not say that some people's money had been whittled down and that their savings had gone. Unfortunately, in the last few weeks some people who were kidded into buying shares have suddenly found that some of their money has gone. The people who will really suffer under these regulations are ordinary working people who by their labour and because of Britain's strength in the past have built up a nest egg. They have still ended up with no real finances. They are the people who will suffer because of the Government's policies.

Mr. Hamilton: I agree with the right hon. Gentleman. I am one of those whose net worth has declined in the past few weeks, having, with my usual efficiency, filled in my application for BP shares on the very day it arrived and posted it on the following Monday morning, before I turned on the midday news which announced the stock market collapse. I am now the proud owner of 2,000 BP shares which are worth less than when I applied for them. I therefore understand the force and vigour of the hon. Gentleman's remarks, and agree with him, on that if on nothing else.
The child benefit regulations have caused some disagreement among Conservative Members, as well as,


among the Opposition. Today, we have seen an alliance of the baronetcy and the squirearchy, if I can put it in those terms. I am glad to see my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham (Sir I. Gilmour). He must have been attracted by my name on the annunciator.
In alliance with my hon. Friends the Members for Ealing, Acton (Sir G. Young) and for Hornchurch (Mr. Squire), my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham attacked the Government's decision not to increase the amounts payable in child benefit. I cannot understand why my right hon. and hon. Friends take such a view, because the enormous amount of money which is paid out in child benefit does very little to alleviate poverty. With the change in income support regulations and the introduction of family credit, it does even less today than it would have done formerly.
It cannot make sense for Conservative Members who give birth to children—my hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Mr. Burns) became a father in the past week, although I believe he was expecting an autumn election when he took that decision, but at least that demonstrates the importance of correct targeting in areas other than the welfare state—to receive child benefit as well as those on the lowest incomes in Britain. The higher one's income, the greater benefit one receives. It must make sense that benefit should be targeted in a better way.

Mr. Barry Porter: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Hamilton: Time is pressing on, and I want to give the Minister a chance to reply.
I agree with my hon. Friends in one respect. I too believe that there is not a great deal of logic in freezing child benefit. We must make the decision one way or the other. We must either phase it out altogether and go back to a system of allowances—which is what I wish to see —or we should continue uprating it in order to preserve it. I propose that it should be retained as a cash benefit for those below the income tax threshold and phased out and converted into a tax allowance for those above that level. That would be a compromise which would attract support from both sides of the argument within the parliamentary Conservative party. It is only by targeting benefits more, and saving, in the case of child benefit, probably £3·5 billion, that we can contribute to lower taxes and higher tax thresholds, which would help many people put into poverty by the tax system, and to the greatest extent raise the living standards of those on the lowest incomes.

Mr. Robert N. Wareing: There is no doubt that the right way to measure the Government's income support package is to judge it against the words that I uttered in the Chamber a few weeks ago, when I quoted the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr. Fowler), the former Secretary of State for Social Services, who, on 3 June 1985, said:
We shall ensure that the structural changes will not result in cash losses by those who are now in receipt of supplementary benefit"—[Official Report, 3 June 1985; Vol. 80, c. 49.]
That is the measure. By that measure this package fails, because we have the abolition, not only of long-term supplementary benefit, but of the weekly additional requirements payments.
Additional requirements payments might be messy administratively, but there can be no doubt that they are related directly to ill health or disabilities. The withdrawal of those payments will mean that 40 per cent. of newly disabled pensioners and 15 per cent. of newly disabled younger people will be worse off. In addition, 236,000 newly disabled pensioners will lose up to £5 a week, and 45,000 will lose over £5 a week. That is indisputable.
The Government claim that newly disabled people will not lose cash. Of course not; they will not get it in the first place. The Government are proceeding according to the adage that what one never has one does not miss. Whether people already receive disability benefits, or whether they will be newly disabled after April 1988, the costs of disability will not disappear.
In contradiction of the words of the former Secretary of State for Social Services, we have those of the present Minister for Social Security and the Disabled. On 2 November he said:
People who would otherwise have received many additional requirements will receive less benefit than their predecessors receive at the moment. I am conscious of that. However, we are referring to very few people.
The Spastics Society has informed me that this provision will affect thousands, not hundreds, of people. Anyone who received £6·50 or more in additional payment under the old system will fail to qualify for severe disability premium and will be worse off, yet we are told that the new proposals are targeted at the very poor.
The only time that the Government are successful in targeting is when they target benefits for the rich. They do not talk about targeting when they talk about moving from direct to indirect taxation, or when they manoeuvre the income tax to give the greatest margin of benefit to those who donate to the funds of the Tory party. We are being asked to approve regulations before we receive details about how the severely disabled will be protected.
The Minister for Social Security and the Disabled also said on 2 November:
However, I am seeking ways in which it may be possible to address the particular circumstances of that small group of people."—[Official Report, 2 November 1987; Vol. 121, c. 743.]
It is not a small group of people. The Minister should tell us tonight what he has planned for the severely disabled. The Government claim that most sick and disabled people will gain, but this rests upon their definition of disabled, which is
those who are of working age who are incapable of work. That definition ignores pensioners, and 66 per cent. of the disabled are pensioners. Pensioners are not qualified to work, but they are not in the figure that the Government have bandied about.
The Government ignore children with disabilities, who are not capable of work, and disabled people who register as unemployed. It is not a few hundred, or even a few thousand, but half a million people who are likely to lose under the Government's arrangements. The Government have promised transitional protection for existing claimants, but the freezing of benefit levels until income support catches up will lead quickly to a drop in people's standards of living.
The Government claim that they spend more on the disabled. They claim that there has been an increase of £2·5 billion in real terms in aid to the disabled since 1979. I should like a breakdown of that figure. I suspect that most


of that expenditure is the result of hard work through take-up campaigns such as the Merseyside welfare rights campaign and the work done by the metropolitan counties and Greater London council before the Government decided that they were being too successful in helping the poor, and abolished them.
The Minister said in reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Halifax (Mrs. Mahon) that there would be maximum publicity through leaflets and so on. I issue a challenge to the Government. They are good at advertising when it suits them. Not long ago they spent thousands advertising British Gas shares, and everybody, even the poorest pensioner, had heard of Sid. Let us have a comparable campaign, not to put more into the pockets of those who possess much, but to put some money into the pockets of those who are suffering.
Are the Government really suggesting that this package of measures on social security will improve things? Is it not the case that every Minister in the Government is an agent of the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Prime Minister, and that the sole purpose of all the legislation is parsimony in public finance? I hope that the campaign that we are waging against these upratings, which are really downratings, will be carried on outside the House. The frontiers of poverty for the disabled are not from the Wash to the Bristol channel. There are plenty of poor people in the constituencies of Conservative Members. I hope that the voice of the Opposition will get through to those people and that they will realise what sort of Members they have elected.

Mr. Frank Field: I am grateful for having been called to speak. My only regret is that the hon. Member for Tatton (Mr. Hamilton) is not here. I wish to present in two minutes the one lesson, that in life things do not always come as simply as one would like. Listening to the hon. Gentleman I was reminded of a statement made by, I think, Aneuran Bevan about Neville Chamberlain ; if he did not make it, I am sure he would have done had he thought of it. He said that listening to the Prime Minister was like a trip round Woolworths; everything was in place and nothing was priced over sixpence. As we know, in life things do not come simply in nice little packages.
In the welfare state we cannot choose just one objective and ignore the others. Although the hon. Gentleman was right in saying that child benefit does not target—by definition it cannot target because it is universal—it has othe advantages. In the period when the Government may be reviewing the future of child benefit, Conservative Members have to weigh up the disadvantages that they see about non-targeting against some of the advantages. Child benefit will remain an important benefit and Ministers will have to defend it from the Treasury. I remind the House, the hon. Member for Tatton in his absence and Ministers of the advantages of non-targeting.
Hon. Members who are serious about creating incentives to work — a point on which the Prime Minister has fought three elections—will support the maintenance and improvement of child benefit because, as child benefit increases, the greater becomes the income of people in work compared with that of those on the dole. Child benefit is maintained when a person is in work, but is deducted from social security payments.
Hon. Members, particularly Conservative Members, who attach importance to the strengthening of the family, should advocate maintaining and increasing the real value of child benefit. All hon. Members who want to see the increased independence of women in our society will also advocate child benefit because it is the only substantial benefit paid to women in their own right.
Those who are keen to eliminate child poverty, and not just talk about its elimination, know that this is the only safe way of doing so. We heard from the Government today that, even with the new super-benefit for poor families, four out of 10 will not claim.
Finally—this is the most important point that I can address to the hon. Member for Tatton and other Conservative Members—those who wish to maintain tax equity between those with children and those without know that the only way to increase the tax threshold for families with children is to increase child benefit. If we do not do that and come up instead with a measure which freezes child benefit and increases the premiums for single-parent families, an absurd situation will develop. A Tory party committed to normal families. as it calls them, would put families with only one parent at an advantage ever those with two. That makes nonsense of the principles for which Conservative and Opposition Members stand.

Mrs. Margaret Beckett: We have had an interesting and constructive debate. I want to say a little about the claims and payments regulations about which most hon. Members spoke. I do not wish to invite the Under-Secretary to dwell on these matters, but I wish to draw the attention of the House to the strictures of the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments about the way in which the House and another place have been given insufficient time for the scrutiny of the regulations. The strictures refer to the whole package of regulations, including income support. That may account for some of the more peculiar comments from Conservative Members who do not understand what the Government are doing, and who might have understood better if, as the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments suggests, they had had more time to study the matter.
I should like the Under-Secretary to elucidate a point touched on by the Minister who opened the debate. If I understood him correctly, he referred to the regulations put forward by the Social Security Advisory Committee and to the fact that the Government have accepted most of them in respect of the changes in the payment of benefits.
The SSAC recommended a series of proposed timetables for the handling of back claims. It does not appear to approve of the Government's proposal for some benefits to be paid a week in advance and others, including those to the most needy, to be paid a week in arrears. I am sure that the Minister did not intend to mislead the House and I may have misheard what he said, but I should like to hear confirmation from the Under-Secretary that, although the Government usually go for simplification, in this case they are happy with complexity. Do the Government expect to make savings through this change at the expense of the needy and, if so, to what extent will those savings be revealed?
I wish to deal now with the uprating regulations and to touch on one point raised only briefly in the debate— the lack of uprating for most of those people living in


residential care or nursing homes. According to the uprating statement, only two groups of people have been given any increase — the very dependent elderly, although an additional £10 may not go very far, and people with a mental handicap. Many hon. Members who have expressed concern about the inadequacy of the payment that the Government are willing to allow to people in residential or nursing care will, when they have had a chance to scrutinise the effects of these upratings, much regret that the Government did not feel able to be more generous.
My hon. Friend the Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) made several clear points about the way in which the Government have been — to put it mildly — less than generous to pensioners. It is not easy to work out the overall sums that the Government are saving by ceasing to uprate pensions in line with earnings, and that takes no account of the fact that they have broken the commitment that was clearly intended at least to make an uprating from time to time. I believe that the savings that the Government are making in that respect must be running at about £3,000 million a year.
It is worth reflecting for a moment on that figure. It casts into some relief the way in which Conservative Members, the Prime Minister and her ministerial colleagues congratulate themselves on their generosity in spending about £400 million on heating allowances— leaving aside the fact that the Government have just abolished those—when we consider the sum of £3,000 million a year in savings. Clearly the Government are making substantial savings at the expense of many pensioners.
Of late, it has been the practice of Ministers to draw attention to the results of the family expenditure survey data which show that the average pensioner household is now doing rather nicely. It has been the practice of the Opposition to draw the Government's attention to the steps that they have taken to weaken that position. A recent study has shown that, apart from that argument, it is especially misleading of the Government — and I cannot help thinking that Ministers are aware of this— to use the figures for average pensioner households when they try to show that there is no problem in not uprating pensions in line with earnings because pensioners are doing very nicely, thank you.
Although the average for all households shows that pensioner incomes have risen, the top 20 per cent. have more than twice as much income as the 20 per cent. immediately below them and more than three times as much as occupational pensioners. Through the excessive gains that those at the top have made, they manage to create the impression that average pensioner households are doing better. People in the bottom 20 per cent. and even those in the 20 per cent. above the bottom section —where a poverty trap is created by the way in which benefits clash with small additional occupational pensions —are doing just as badly as many of us had feared.
The overall effects of the massive increases given to the best-off pensioners are skewing the average so that it gives a misleading appearance of the wealth or poverty of pensioners as whole. It is useful to draw attention to that while we are talking about the Government's refusal to uprate pensions properly.
We have had a particularly interesting debate on child benefit. I welcome the remarks of a number of Conservative Members who have had the courage to tell the Government that they are getting it wrong. They have drawn attention to the fact that, although the Government make much of the compensation that will go to some families who draw family credit, even on Government figures—and there will be another debate in which we can draw attention to the inadequacy of those—at least 40 per cent. of the poorest families in work will lose from the decision not to uprate child benefit. It would be invidious to single out more than one Conservative Member who spoke in defence of child benefit, but I am confident that those hon. Members are more at ease with their consciences than are many of those who spoke in other respects.
Like my hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field), I must tell the hon. Member for Tatton (Mr. Hamilton)—who is still not present in the Chamber— that it is noteworthy that when Conservative Members such as he talk about the need to target benefits on the poorest, they are always very keen to see that switch coming from those who are slightly less poor. When it comes to asking them to vote for an increased family premium for which the resources might come from the wealthiest taxpayers, or when we ask them to vote for an additional premium for the unemployed, they have no interest. They always vote against such proposals and usually speak against them as well. Only when people on low incomes, and not people like Conservative Members, are going to pay are they in favour of targeting help and giving more to those in greatest need.
I want to consider briefly the cost of the simplification that the Government claim is one of the principal benefits for income support and also consider who is paying it. My hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, South (Ms. Primarolo) made one of the best maiden speeches that I have heard. It was equalled only by the contribution of my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, Central (Mr. Cousins). They drew particular attention to the problems of the young.
It became clear throughout the debate that, when the age of majority has gone down to 18, there is no defence for the Government, in practice, through the system of income support, and, indeed, the concomitant benefits, raising the age of majority to 25.
There are particular problems for those in low-paid or part-time work. About 60,000 single parents—a group whom otherwise the Government seek to help, as my hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead mentioned—in part-time work will lose substantially through the Government's decision not to allow them to take account of their work expenses before their benefit is calculated, as is the case at present. Such single parents are likely to lose around £19 or £20 a week. That is a substantial disincentive to remain in work. Indeed, for many, particularly young mothers, it is perhaps the loss of the last chance that they have to retain their contact with the labour market, their independence and their dignity, and to stay, as the Secretary of State would apparently wish, out of the benefit culture. The Government's action is forcing them into the benefit culture, instead of offering them the chance of independence which will take them out of it.
The decision to count the average hours of work that somebody puts in, rather than their average earnings, and


the decision that someone with a partner in full-time work should not be able to claim benefit, no matter what their income is and no matter if the family income is well below the poverty line, are creating a further disincentive to work. Again, the Government are forcing people back on to benefits because the losses that are likely to be incurred in many cases are more than most families could sustain.
The problems of the disabled have been clearly highlighted by many of my hon. Friends and, indeed, by some Conservative Members, notably the right hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Sir I. Gilmour). Whatever the Government may say about the number of disabled people who are being assisted by their overall scheme of income support, there are many serious and heavy losses, and not only—not that it is defensible— among the most severely disabled. The Government seek to suggest that they hope to tackle the problem, but they have had nearly two years since the proposals were first put forward and it is a little weak, to put it mildly— although it is welcome as far as it goes — that they should now argue that they can take that step.
When we discuss the losses that disabled claimants are likely to incur, the Government's answer is always that there will be transitional protection. By definition, there is no transitional protection for new claimants. It is no answer to the point that many disabled charities make over and over again about the substantial fall in the standard of living that will be experienced by people who become disabled after the regulations and the Act to which they refer are on the statute book to say that it will be all right for those who are disabled now.
To say to someone who, perhaps, moves into a new flat in which there is an expensive heating system and who has a couple of other minor entitlements to additional allowances, which is the experience of many people who are not particularly disabled, that they will lose £4 or £5 a week from their benefit, and to add, "But those who are already drawing benefit are being protected," is just not an answer. It has no relationship to the problems that they face. Their standard of living is significantly below that of disabled people. The Government have never attempted to deny that. All that they do is talk about people whose standard of living will fall only steadily over several years rather than at once being substantially below present levels.
Any severely or otherwise disabled person, perhaps such as those on kidney dialysis—many societies which deal with such people have drawn our attention to the problems that they are likely to face—who finds himself with a more serious patch of illness, as is most likely to happen, and has to go into hospital for some weeks, so that his circumstances change, will lose his transitional protection at a stroke, to coin a phrase.
The Minister of State and the Secretary of State drew attention to the fact that they hope to avoid the worst losses for the most severely disabled by inflation-proofing the domestic assistance addition, which is the most significant single sum that can be added to such a person's benefit. We welcome that, but it was disgraceful that it was not proposed from the beginning. Inflation-proofing the domestic assistance addition will be of no value to people who have a break in the benefit that they are claiming because they are going to hospital or for some other reason. They will lose the increase that the Government claim will be protected.
The then right hon. Member for Cambridgeshire, South-East, Mr. Francis Pym, said that the Government had begun from the wrong point. Unlike Beveridge, they did not set out to study the market or to see how claimants' problems could be met. They started halfway through, with a system of review, and considered the system as it then stood. The hon. Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Squire) said, "Yes, we are looking for a simplified system and an improvement, but not at the expense of the most vulnerable members of our society." The Government have claimed that they are making the most important reforms since Beveridge, as they are, but to make them at the expense of the most vulnerable in society is a disgrace.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security (Mr. Michael Portillo): I congratulate the hon. Member for Bristol, South (Ms. Primarolo) on her maiden speech. She succeeded Michael Cocks, who will certainly be missed by Conservative Members. I was a little worried when the hon. Lady was elected, because she has a foreign surname that begins with a P and ends with an O. I could foresee confusion with the Post Office, but fortunately that has not occurred so far.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, Central (Mr. Cousins) on his maiden speech. His predecessor, Piers Merchant, will be missed, but we hope to welcome him back to the House shortly. While I am dishing out congratulations, I congratualte my hon. Friend the Minister on being able to claim another £7·25 a week, due to the arrival of a child.
The hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) spoke at length about retirement pensioners and the Labour party's record. We heard the usual claims that the only way to give pensioners a decent standard of living is to uplift the basic pension in line with earnings rather than by matching price rises—a point that was also made by my hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Mr. Boswell). For pensioners, the state pension constitutes only one half of their net income. In 1985, on average, pensioners received incomes equivalent to about 60 per cent. of the incomes of those in full-time work. That proportion has increased significantly since 1979.
Pensioners' living standards have increased under this Government relative to the living standards of others. Under the last Labour Administration, with their policy of earnings-linked pension increases and poor control over the economy, pensioner living standards fell relative to those in work. That is a record of which the Labour party is proud.
Policies to assist elderly people that concentrate on the pension alone are doomed to failure. Between 1974 and 1979, the Labour Government increased pensions in real terms—a meagre 3 per cent. increae in total income after five years. Pensioners were particularly badly hit by rampant inflation under that Government, whereas under this Government inflation has been firmly under control. As a consequence, pensioners have done well.

Mr. Robin Cook: The hon. Gentleman will acknowledge that the tables in Economic Trends from which his figures are drawn show that the increase in occupational pensions is confined to the top quintile of pensioners and that the bottom 60 per cent. of pensioners derive 80 per cent. of their income from state pensions. It is the bottom 60 per cent. who have been cheated by this Government.

Mr. Portillo: I was clearly wrong to give way to the hon. Gentleman, as I was coming to exactly that point.
The hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett) thought she had discovered something. In fact, the figures show that the average annual increase in the incomes of the lowest quintile of pensioners was 2·8 per cent. in real terms between 1979 and 1985 against 2·9 per cent. for those in the highest quintile. That is the great point that the hon. Member for Livingston thinks he is on to—a 0·1 per cent. difference between the top and the bottom quintile. What really matters is the number of pensioners who now find themselves in the bottom quintile, and that has fallen from 38 per cent. in 1979 to 25 per cent. on the latest figures.
I sympathise with my hon. Friends the Members for Daventry and for Ealing, Acton (Sir G. Young) in the argument about the needs of older pensioners. However, I emphasise that those pensioners, too, have benefited from the improvement in their savings since inflation has been under control. My hon. Friends should not forget that the over-80s are getting the special over-80 premium under income support—probably the sort of measure that my hon. Friends seek.
Today's debate seems to have been about the abolition of child benefit, which is not a matter before the House and does not arise from the regulations. There was a good deal of tilting at windmills, although my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham (Sir I. Gilmour) and my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, Acton made convincing hidalgos and the hon. Member for Southport (Mr. Fearn) made a fair Sancho Panza. My right hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham said that he took a historical view. That is fair enough, but I would like to get the history straight. It is not true, as my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow) alleged, that child benefit is now less valuable than child tax allowance and family allowance 20 years ago. For a person on average earnings, the opposite is true. Child benefit is now more valuable to someone in that position.
We have heard a great deal about the apparent drawbacks of income-related benefits and the advantages of universal benefits such as child benefit. However, we should preserve a sense of scale. We are talking about 30p —the difference between what child benefit would be if the Government uprated it from April and the £7·25 that it will be. The effect on the numbers receiving income-related benefits has been alluded to. It is a small effect. Perhaps 10,000 families that would not otherwise have qualified will qualify for family credit and perhaps another 5,000 will qualify for housing benefit. Therefore, hon. Members have been arguing that, for the sake of 10,000 families on the one hand and 5,000 on the other, we should have committed £120 million of public money to uprating child benefit in line with inflation.
I understand the arguments of the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) about poverty traps, but I must say to him and to my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham that scale matters in all this. It is important to remember that we are talking about 4p per day per child on the one hand—that is what all the fuss is about—while on the other we are talking about the possibility of putting £200 million extra into family credits to help families that are particularly in need. I do not believe that those who have so passionately defended child benefit this evening are really concerned about that 30p.

The truth is that they would like to have a very much higher level of child benefit and to use that increase as a way of floating people off income-related benefits.
That point of view is fair enough, but it needs to be examined. If child benefit were doubled next April, only about 80,000 families would be floated off income support, and some of those would still be receiving housing benefit. The net cost of achieving that would be £3·5 billion. I cannot agree that that would be the best use of £3·5 billion. I recognise the vital role that the state can play in helping families. The Labour party always makes the mistake of equating with cash the help that can be given to families. The help and support that the Conservative party gives to families is much more than cash support. We give vigorous moral support to the family ; that is what is lacking from the Labour party.
There has been a great deal of talk about the position of the disabled under income support. They have benefited significantly under this Government. By 1986, 52,000 people on supplementary benefit were receiving mobility allowance and 181,000 people on income maintenance were receiving attendance allowance. A great deal of the debate this evening was conducted as if those two benefits did not exist and as if there had not been a tremendous increase in their take-up.
The revised figures we have published for income support show a real-terms increase, on average, of £4·80 for the 270,000 claimants receiving the disability premium. That implies increased spending of over £60 million, which is the figure to which we have alluded several times. It is better than the £50 million we quoted at the time of the technical annex published in 1985. In addition, we will be providing—these figures are not in the technical annex —a severe disability premium of £24·75 to about 7,000 claimants. That compares with about 4,500 people who currently receive domestic assistance additions whose average is only £6·35 at present. That is the comparison that the Opposition so signally failed to make.
It is important to bear in mind, as I have already said, that the benefits about which we are talking come on top of the payment of attendance allowance and mobility allowance. Someone receiving an attendance allowance will receive support of £68.45 if they are on income support and over the age of 25. Someone receiving the servere disability premium will receive £93.20 and in addition they could receive a mobility allowance and perhaps maximum help with rent and rates.
I would like to answer specifically the points raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham. I hope that he will not dispute, now that he has heard the figures, that in general the disabled will be benefiting from the package of measures that we are debating. He said that 40 per cent. of disabled pensioners would be losing under the reforms. That figure is based on a false inference. The implication of what he was saying is that all pensioners are disabled. [Interruption.] That is the way the figures have been drawn.

Mrs. Beckett: rose—

Mr. Portillo: I will not give way, because I have only three minutes left.
The hon. Member for Bristol, South and several others mentioned the problems of the young. The hon. Member for Bristol, South rather surprised me. She said that she looked back to 1970 and wondered what opportunity


young people under 16 and 17 had then. I can tell her the opportunity that they did not have. They did not have the opportunity of participating in the youth training scheme, which is a guarantee that this Government give to every 16 and 17-year-old. That is an important opportunity that she chose to ignore entirely.
The hon. Member for Livingston also chose to ignore the fact that 60 per cent. of young people under our new proposals will be gainers or will be unaffected in real terms by the changes we are making. He also ignored the fact that there are 200,000 young people who will be gaining £3 or more.
The Opposition have failed throughout the debate to say what they would do if they were in government. What they have done has been entirely negative, although the former Opposition spokesman for social services accepted that supplementary benefit was not a benefit that he wished to see continue. The attitude of the Opposition throughout the debate—has been confined to opposing the measures that we are bringing forward. We have had no coherent version of what the system should be. We are producing a better system, which is easier to understand and to operate. It will also be better explained to claimants, who will know what they qualify for.
I commend the changes to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That the draft Social Security Benefits Up-rating (No. 2) Order 1987, which was laid before this House on 3rd November, be approved.

INCOME SUPPORT

Motion made and Question put,
That the draft Income Support (General) Regulations 1987, which were laid before this House on 10th November, be approved.

The House divided: Ayes 247, Noes 190.

Division No. 69]
[10 pm


AYES


Aitken, Jonathan
Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)


Alexander, Richard
Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon Alick


Allason, Rupert
Buck, Sir Antony


Amess, David
Burns, Simon


Amos, Alan
Burt, Alistair


Arbuthnot, James
Butcher, John


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Butler, Chris


Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)
Butterfill, John


Ashby, David
Carlisle, John, (Luton N)


Aspinwall, Jack
Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Carrington, Matthew


Baldry, Tony
Carttiss, Michael


Batiste, Spencer
Cash, William


Bellingham, Henry
Channon, Rt Hon Paul


Bendall, Vivian
Chapman, Sydney


Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Chope, Christopher


Benyon, W.
Churchill, Mr


Bevan, David Gilroy
Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)


Biggs-Davison, Sir John
Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)


Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Colvin, Michael


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Coombs, Simon (Swindon)


Boswell, Tim
Cope, John


Bottomley, Peter
Cormack, Patrick


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Cran, James


Bowis, John
Currie, Mrs Edwina


Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes
Curry, David


Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard
Davies, Q. (Stamf'd &amp; Spald'g)


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Davis, David (Boothferry)


Brazier, Julian
Day, Stephen


Bright, Graham
Devlin, Tim


Brooke, Hon Peter
Dickens, Geoffrey


Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Cl't's)
Dicks, Terry





Dorrell, Stephen
Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Moss, Malcolm


Dunn, Bob
Moynihan, Hon C.


Dykes, Hugh
Mudd, David


Eggar, Tim
Needham, Richard


Evennett, David
Nelson, Anthony


Farr, Sir John
Neubert, Michael


Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)
Newton, Tony


Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey
Nicholls, Patrick


Fookes, Miss Janet
Nicholson, David (Taunton)


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Nicholson, Miss E. (Devon W)


Fowler, Rt Hon Norman
Onslow, Cranley


Fox, Sir Marcus
Oppenheim, Phillip


Franks, Cecil
Page, Richard


Freeman, Roger
Paice, James


French, Douglas
Patnick, Irvine


Fry, Peter
Patten, Chris (Bath)


Gardiner, George
Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Pawsey, James


Gill, Christopher
Porter, Barry (Wirral S)


Glyn, Dr Alan
Porter, David (Waveney)


Goodlad, Alastair
Portillo, Michael


Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
Powell, William (Corby)


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Price, Sir David


Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)
Raffan, Keith


Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)
Raison, Rt Hon Timothy


Griffiths, Sir Eldon (Bury St E')
Redwood, John


Grist, Ian
Renton, Tim


Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)
Rhodes James, Robert


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Riddick, Graham


Harris, David
Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas


Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.
Ridsdale, Sir Julian


Hind, Kenneth
Roe, Mrs Marion


Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)
Rossi, Sir Hugh


Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)
Rost, Peter


Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)
Rowe, Andrew


Hunt, David (Wirral W)
Rumbold, Mrs Angela


Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)
Ryder, Richard


King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)
Sackville, Hon Tom


Kirkhope, Timothy
Sainsbury, Hon Tim


Knapman, Roger
Sayeed, Jonathan


Knight, Greg (Derby North)
Scott, Nicholas


Knowles, Michael
Shaw, David (Dover)


Knox, David
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)


Lamont, Rt Hon Norman
Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')


Latham, Michael
Shelton, William (Streatham)


Lawrence, Ivan
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)


Lilley, Peter
Shersby, Michael


Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)
Sims, Roger


Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Soames, Hon Nicholas


Lord, Michael
Speed, Keith


Lyell, Sir Nicholas
Speller, Tony


McCrindle, Robert
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Macfarlane, Neil
Stanbrook, Ivor


MacGregor, John
Stanley, Rt Hon John


MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)
Steen, Anthony


Maclean, David
Stevens, Lewis


McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)
Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)


Madel, David
Stradling Thomas, Sir John


Major, Rt Hon John
Sumberg, David


Malins, Humfrey
Summerson, Hugo


Mans, Keith
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Maples, John
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Marland, Paul
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Marshall, John (Hendon S)
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)


Marshall, Michael (Arundel)
Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman


Martin, David (Portsmouth S)
Temple-Morris, Peter


Maude, Hon Francis
Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)


Mawhinney, Dr Brian
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Thorne, Neil


Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick
Thornton, Malcolm


Meyer, Sir Anthony
Thurnham, Peter


Mills, lain
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Miscampbell, Norman
Tredinnick, David


Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Trotter, Neville


Moate, Roger
Twinn, Dr Ian


Montgomery, Sir Fergus
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Moore, Rt Hon John
Viggers, Peter


Morris, M (N'hampton S)
Waddington, Rt Hon David






Waldegrave, Hon William
Wilkinson, John


Walden, George
Wilshire, David


Walker, Bill (T'side North)
Winterton, Mrs Ann


Waller, Gary
Winterton, Nicholas


Walters, Dennis
Wood, Timothy


Wardle, C. (Bexhill)
Woodcock, Mike


Warren, Kenneth
Yeo, Tim


Watts, John
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Wells, Bowen



Wheeler, John
Tellers for the Ayes:


Whitney, Ray
Mr. Tony Durant and


Widdecombe, Miss Ann
Mr. David Lightbown.


Wiggin, Jerry





NOES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)


Adams, Allen (Paisley N)
Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'l)


Allen, Graham
Dewar, Donald


Alton, David
Dixon, Don


Anderson, Donald
Dobson, Frank


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Doran, Frank


Armstrong, Ms Hilary
Douglas, Dick


Ashton, Joe
Duffy, A. E. P.


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Dunnachie, James


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth


Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)
Eastham, Ken


Barron, Kevin
Evans, John (St Helens N)


Battle, John
Fatchett, Derek


Beckett, Margaret
Fearn, Ronald


Beith, A. J.
Field, Frank (Birkenhead)


Bell, Stuart
Fields, Terry (L'pool B G'n)


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Flannery, Martin


Bennett, A. F. (D'nt'n &amp; R'dish)
Flynn, Paul


Bermingham, Gerald
Foot, Rt Hon Michael


Bidwell, Sydney
Foster, Derek


Blair, Tony
Fraser, John


Boateng, Paul
Fyfe, Mrs Maria


Bradley, Keith
Galbraith, Samuel


Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)
Galloway, George


Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)
Garrett, John (Norwich South)


Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)
George, Bruce


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John


Buchan, Norman
Godman, Dr Norman A.


Caborn, Richard
Gordon, Ms Mildred


Callaghan, Jim
Gould, Bryan


Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)
Graham, Thomas


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)


Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Clay, Bob
Hardy, Peter


Clelland, David
Harman, Ms Harriet


Cohen, Harry
Heffer, Eric S.


Cook, Robin (Livingston)
Henderson, Douglas


Corbett, Robin
Hinchliffe, David


Corbyn, Jeremy
Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)


Cousins, Jim
Holland, Stuart


Cox, Tom
Home Robertson, John


Crowther, Stan
Hood, James


Cryer, Bob
Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)


Cummings, J.
Hoyle, Doug


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)


Cunningham, Dr John
Hughes, Roy (Newport E)


Darling, Alastair
Hughes, Simon (Southwark)


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Illsley, Eric





Ingram, Adam
Quin, Ms Joyce


Janner, Greville
Radice, Giles


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)
Randall, Stuart


Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Reid, John


Kilfedder, James
Richardson, Ms Jo


Lambie, David
Roberts, Allan (Bootle)


Lamond, James
Robertson, George


Leadbitter, Ted
Robinson, Geoffrey


Leighton, Ron
Rooker, Jeff


Litherland, Robert
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


Livingstone, Ken
Rowlands, Ted


Livsey, Richard
Ruddock, Ms Joan


Lofthouse, Geoffrey
Salmond, Alex


Loyden, Eddie
Sedgemore, Brian


McAllion, John
Sheerman, Barry


McAvoy, Tom
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


McCartney, Ian
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Macdonald, Calum
Skinner, Dennis


McKay, Allen (Penistone)
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


McLeish, Henry
Smith, C. (Isl'ton &amp; F'bury)


McTaggart, Bob
Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)


McWilliam, John
Snape, Peter


Madden, Max
Soley, Clive


Mahon, Mrs Alice
Spearing, Nigel


Marek, Dr John
Steel, Rt Hon David


Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Steinberg, Gerald


Martlew, Eric
Stott, Roger


Meacher, Michael
Strang, Gavin


Meale, Alan
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Michael, Alun
Taylor, Rt Hon J. D. (S'ford)


Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)
Turner, Dennis


Molyneaux, Rt Hon James
Vaz, Keith


Moonie, Dr Lewis
Wall, Pat


Morgan, Rhodri
Wallace, James


Morley, Elliott
Wailley, Ms Joan


Morris, Rt Hon J (Aberavon)
Warden, Gareth (Gower)


Mowlam, Mrs Marjorie
Wareing, Robert N.


Mullin, Chris
Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)


Murphy, Paul
Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)


Nellist, Dave
Wilson, Brian


Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon
Winnick, David


O'Brien, William
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Patchett, Terry
Worthington, Anthony


Pendry, Tom
Wray, James


Pike, Peter



Powell, Ray (Ogmore)
Tellers for the Noes:


Prescott, John
Mr. Frank Cook and Mrs. Llin Golding.


Primarolo, Ms Dawn

Question accordingly agreed to.

SOCIAL SECURITY (CLAIMS AND PAYMENTS)

Resolved,
That the draft Social Security (Claims and Payments) Regulations 1987, which were laid before his House on 10th November, be approved.—[Mr. Scott.]

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Ordered,
That, at this day's sitting, the Motion relating to Supplementary Estimates 1987–88 may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. Ryder.]

Supplementary Estimates 1987–88

CLASS XIX, VOTE 16

BP Share Issue

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Norman Lamont): I beg to move,
That a supplementary sum, not exceeding £1,000, be granted to Her Majesty out of the Consolidated Fund to defray the charges which will come in course of payment during the year ending on 31st March 1988 for expenditure by the Treasury in connection with the purchase and sale of shares in BP plc.
First, may I welcome the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East (Mr. Brown) to the Opposition Front Bench as a shadow Treasury spokesman. Secondly, may I explain the purpose of the Supplementary Estimate, because it is extremely narrow.
The purpose of the Supplementary Estimate is to provide for the gross cost of the Government's subscription for new BP shares and to appropriate in aid of this expenditure virtually the same amount of receipts from the sale of shares so as to enable drawings on the Contingencies Fund to he repaid. The net result of these two transactions is that the Estimate provides for no more than a token £1,000 additional expenditure. This is the minimum sum which the House is asked to vote tonight.
The subscription for BP shares arises from the decision to combine BP's rights issue of some £1·5 billion of new equity with the Government's sale of their remaining holding of BP shares. It would not have been sensible for these two exercises to proceed separately. A separate issue of new equity by the company could have clashed in time with the Government's sale, and would have been confusing. We therefore agreed with BP that it was in both our interests to have a combined offer.
As part of this offer the Treasury agreed to subscribe for BP's new shares on a fully-paid basis, and immediately to sell the shares together with the Government's existing shares. The cost of the subscription was more than offset by the proceeds of the first of three instalments from the combined offer. The decision to proceed in this way was announced to the House in my written answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton (Mr. Nicholson) on 21 July.
The Estimate that we are considering tonight covers solely the costs of the Government's subscription to the new BP shares—the rights issue—and the appropriation of receipts to pay for that subscription. It does not cover the sale expenses of the combined share offer, nor the Bank of England buy-back scheme announced by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer on 29 October. Those will be the subject of separate Supplementary Estimates. This Estimate is entirely about paying BP for the rights issue. In that sense it is a transfer. The Government's intention to present a Supplementary Estimate was made clear in my written answer on 21 July.
The Supplementary Estimate was laid before Parliament on 2 November, the first day of parliamentary business after dealings commenced in the partly-paid shares on 30 October, and after the underwriting

agreements became unconditional. Since the Government were obliged to incur the expenditure of £1·513 billion immediately the BP offer went unconditional on 30 October, the costs were met, in anticipation of Parliament's approval, by an advance from the Contingencies Fund.
The statutory limit on drawings from the Contingencies Fund is 2 per cent. of the previous year's Supply Expenditure, which amounts to just over £2 billion. 'The advance for the BP subscription, together with other advances, accounts for a large proportion of this total. 'The Consolidated Fund Bill giving effect to the normal winter round of Supplementary Estimates usually gains royal assent just before Christmas. It would be imprudent to leave a relatively small balance in the fund to cover all contingencies until that time.
The Government will therefore ask the House to approve a special Consolidated Fund Bill, taken out of turn, to appropriate the funds to repay the advance from the Contingencies Fund for the BP subscription as quickly as possible. The Consolidated Fund Bill will be introduced immediately after this evening's debate. Further Supplementary Estimates will be presented shortly, and will follow the usual timetable and procedures for the winter round.

Mr. Nicholas Brown: I thank the Minister for his courteous welcome. When I transferred from my tutelage by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Aberavon (Mr. Morris) I thought that I might escape late-night debates. I am sorry if I have brought the Minister bad luck in that regard.
The Opposition sought this short debate on the Supplementary Estimate because it provides an opportunity for hon. Members to raise matters connected with the BP sale and the provisions in the Estimate for repayment to the Contingencies Fund.
The Treasury has spent some £39 million of public money on marketing the sale. That makes it one of the most expensive share launches in history, at £144 per investor. One cannot help but wonder whether some of the investors would rather have just had the cash. That must apply particularly to the some 5,000 individuals who originally applied for BP shares, but have defaulted, mostly by bouncing their cheques. At some stage the Treasury must decide—I accept that the decision may not yet have been made—whether to prosecute those individuals to enforce the contract of sale. No doubt the House will be told that decision in due course.

Mr. Malcolm Bruce: What about multiple applications?

Mr. Brown: The hon. Gentleman mentions multiple applications. I do not think that it is yet compulsory to make them, but who knows what may come? If individuals end up as unwilling participants in popular capitalism, it is legitimate to ask whether they will also receive direct mail-shot letters inviting them to make a financial contribution to the cost of developing the Conservative party's new strategic thinking. I offer the idea to the Minister, who may take it up—or not—as he likes.
More seriously, the Government still own about 69 million shares in BP, which were being retained for a loyalty bonus. They will not all be needed for that purpose,


and the Government will have to say at some stage what they intend to do with them. The redundancy of the loyalty bonus issue highlights a broader point. The number of British citizens who own shares is now in decline. The true figure is probably around 7 million, and falling. The failure of the BP launch is a tangible setback to popular capitalism. It is also much more than that. The psychological jolt that it has delivered will prove to be far more important in the long run. It will encourage speculators to be more discerning — I am not sure whether that is a good thing; I suspect not—especially between privatised monopoly utilities and privatised trading companies, to the trading companies' detriment.
Also abandoned is the philosophical approach of leaving matters to the market place without intervention by the Government. Whatever the arguments about the wisdom of the speculators' safety net, it is clearly a Government intervention in the market place. There are other problems with a safety net — not least those involving its withdrawal. It is difficult to tell how much of the present dealing in BP shares is deliberately short term, but, no matter how many times the shares are bought and sold, the Government guarantee to take them back into public ownership, even if that means paying more than their market value, which cannot be called popular capitalism. I hope that there is not chaos on the day before the safety net is removed, but the potential for trouble is plainly there, almost built into the arrangement. The resultant damage to BP's share value in the short term cannot be in anyone's interests — certainly not in the Government's, who would then be substantial shareholders again.
All this leads me to the possibly unworthy thought that the Government might seek to avoid the safety net coming into operation by authorising the Bank of England discreetly to deal in BP shares in the market place to help the price stay well above 70p. Perhaps the Minister will address that point.
Another point that needs clarification is the Government's attitude to bed and breakfasting in the BP sale. Bed and breakfasting is a tax dodge, whereby major share owners sell themselves their own shares at a loss, solely for tax purposes. Arguably, the Finance Act 1985 has made that easier, and the opportunities for abuse when the Government have fixed a minimum share price are self-evident. I hope that the Inland Revenue have the Government's encouragement to pursue such abuses with vigour.
A detail in the Estimate deals with a matter that was first raised in the House a fortnight ago. My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith) asked:
Will the Chancellor take this opportunity to confirm— he denied it on Tuesday—that he has to pay for the rights issue from BP at 330p and that he will have to hand over the money tomorrow?" — [Official Report, 29 October 1987; Vol. 121, c. 436.]
The Chancellor replied:
The right hon. and learned Gentleman raised the lastpoint on Tuesday and, as he knows, he is wrong." — [Official Report, 29 October 1987; Vol. 121, c. 436.]
In spite of that, we are today debating an Estimate which, in part II, under the heading
A3 Subscription for new shares
states:

As announced on 21 July (Official Report column 111) the Government subscribed for new BP shares, fully paid, conditional on the sale of new and old BP shares under the offer. When this condition was met, upon completion of the sale, payment was made to BP for their new shres at the UK fixed price.
The Estimate sets out the sum paid, and by dividing that sum by the number of shares purchased—which I can just about manage—we arrive at a figure of 329·7p per share. The implication of the question asked by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Monklands, East was that the Chancellor was buying the shares for more than the price at which he intended to sell them. The Chancellor refuted that by saying that of course he was not.
I accept that 329·7p is not quite 330p, but if that is all that the Chancellor meant when he vigorously denied the purchase, he was being less than straightforward with the House. The truth is slightly different and the point that my right hon. and learned Friend was trying to make was correct. It would have done the Chancellor more good if he had acknowledged that fact instead of retreating behind what I can best describe as mathematical semantics. I do not know whether the Minister wishes to intervene to clarify the point once and for all, but perhaps he will do so if I have got it wrong. The matter needs to be clarified because, as it stands, its substance reflects badly on the Chancellor.
The Conservative party is proud of being the party that best understands the City and knows about financial management, yet it managed to sell Britain's best-known company at the wrong price and at the wrong time. The 5 per cent. Kuwaiti shareholding provides an opportunity to commemorate the Government's involvement with BP by changing the name from BP to KP—after the nuts.

Mr. Malcolm Bruce: I suspect that the House will need to return to this matter on more than a few occasions. It is obviously appropriate for the Government to start to give us some idea of what might be in store. At this stage nobody really knows.
I reiterate what I have said on numerous occasions, that it certainly gave me no satisfaction to see the BP share offer getting into difficulties. As I think the Government know, I and members of my party supported in principle the sale of the BP shares and were certainly in favour of the objective of wider share ownership that it was designed to achieve. A couple of matters arise from that and go back a few years in the privatisation programme.
The stated and glorious objective of the Government to achieve wider share ownership, which if done the right way I can fully support in principle, was subordinated to the realisation by the Government that they could secure substantial sums of money that were transferred from the private to the public sector. They realised that they could use that money to finance their tax cuts and/or their public spending requirements. It is regrettable that, when it became apparent that the BP flotation was in difficulty, that commitment by the Government to secure extra revenue and the necessity to overlook their previously stated first objective of wider share ownership.
Clearly, wider share ownership could not be achieved by the flotation at that time and has not been achieved. The proper thing for the Government to do was to suspend the flotation in spite of the difficulties that that would cause. The Chancellor came to the House and, to great


acclaim from the Government Benches, produced what was apparently a salvation formula for the share offer. The full implications have not yet worked through.
The Bank of England has undertaken, up to the extension of the deadline for the safety net, to buy any shares that are offered to it at 70p, against a part-paid value of £1·20. I would appreciate it if the Minister would confirm that, on the day that the safety net is withdrawn, it is conceivable that all the shares will be offered to the Bank of England and it will be obliged to stump up the full 70p for them, which I calculate to be about £1·4 billion. That is only the beginning of the problem, because it means that that money will be tied up within the Bank of England and the bank is stuck with the problem of when to offload those shares. That will depend on what happens with the stock market and for how long it moves in the wrong or the right direction.
The Government are taking a substantial gamble, involving large amounts of public money. I appreciate that the £1,000 in the Supply Estimate is a technical device, but I think that it will he an ironical £1,000 compared with what might happen at the end of the day. It is a complex and difficult matter, and I do not confess to understand all the interactions and inter-relationships that follow, but it seems to me that the public are being stung twice— first as taxpayers, and secondly as contributors to savings or pensions schemes.
It is suggested that the loss on the shares is restricted to the 255,000 people who were either so farsighted that they had a different view from the rest of society, or so stupid that they did not realise the commercial realities that they were entering into. The reality is that millions of people suffered a loss on the flotation of BP because the institutions were either directly or indirectly underwriting it. That loss is built into the consequent adjustment to unit trusts and pension funds.
The hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East (Mr. Brown) mentioned the Kuwaiti interest that has been acquired. It would be appropriate if the Minister advised the House what safeguards there are in the system to prevent a substantial increase, given the depressed state of the market, in foreign shareholdings in BP, not all of which would be regarded as necessarily friendly in intent. The middle eastern interest in BP is a fairly obvious one.
I now raise a serious constituency matter, which I regard as poor custodianship by the Government on behalf of other shareholders of BP. British Petroleum is the largest employer in my constituency. It has its North sea operational headquarters there and approximately 2,700 people operate out of that office. We are glad to have those headquarters there. BP is one of the major oil companies operating in the North sea and Aberdeen area. It is regrettable that BP is in the process of transferring 300 technical staff from Aberdeen to the City of London, contrary to all intelligent market interpretations, at a cost to its shareholders of tens of millions of pounds.
A new office block has had to be acquired in addition to Britannia House in the City of London, where the Minister will know that office rentals are about 12 or 15 times the cost of office accommodation in Aberdeen. In addition, all removal costs, legal expenses and any loss incurred by the staff on their houses will be paid for by BP, and, therefore, indirectly by its shareholders. I resent more than anything the extent to which BP's actions have adversely affected the property market and many other

people in Aberdeen who do not have the advantage of a company to step in and pick up the financial consequences of such a decision.

Mr. David Tredinnick: Is there not a case for saying that a company the size and stature of BP should at all times retain an office in the City, where it can be on top of current issues?

Mr. Bruce: I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman has no knowledge of the background to what I am talking about. BP has a huge office in the City of London, bigger indeed than those of most of the banks. Quite why an oil company needs to have so many engineers based on the most expensive square mile of office accommodation in the United Kingdom beats me. If the company was not so big, and if its shareholders were not so complacent—this is the context in which I am criticising the Government— questions might have been raised as to whether that expenditure was in the best interests of the shareholders. I suggest that it was not.
What happened when the Chancellor came up with his rescue operation—if I may call it that—for the BP share flotation will be seen as a turning point for what has been known, even by the Prime Minister, as Thatcherism. A major share flotation got caught in a bear market and the Government had to change tack. No more will hon. Members on the Opposition Benches or people outside the House take self-righteous, smug, complacent lectures from the Chancellor of the Exchequer about the merits of nonintervention, about letting the market operate or about not using taxpayers' money to bale out companies, individuals or communities when they get into difficulty.
We are discussing a potential investment of billions of pounds of taxpayers' money which has been triggered by direct intervention in the market by a Government who claim that such proceedings are not acceptable and are not the way to operate in a free market. This will have implications for further major share sales. As and when we come to the privatisation of electricity, I believe that the Government will be forced to carry that out in a much different way from previous flotations. It would be absolute madness to try to float the electricity industry as a one-off, single sale like British Telecom or British Gas. It would be a disaster.

Mr. Graham Allen: Can the hon. Gentleman tell the House how the Liberal party would privatise the electricity industry?

Mr. Bruce: This debate is not about how we would privatise it. It is the Government who are proposing to privatise it. We have made it clear that the Government have made no case so far that convinces us of the merits of privatising electricity. The Government themselves do not know how they are going to do it. That was revealed only a week or so ago. This is a serious point. If the House does not appreciate it, I am sure that people outside, especially those employed in the electricity industry, do. If an £18 billion flotation were to come to the market in a single tranche after the experience of BP it would mean that the Government had learnt absolutely nothing from this exercise.
The Government will have to think seriously about how the programme continues. Regrettably, the BP share sale was not in that category. One of the mistakes that the Government have made is in selling public monopolies in


one, centralised unit as private monopolies, without proper competition or regulation, at a discount, with accounts massaged and underwritten by the taxpayers. Some of us have different priorities from the Government about the need to spend money. For instance, we believe in providing adequate benefits for the poor. The Government tell us that the money is not available and that we are irresponsible to call for such expenditure. Yet here we are debating what could ultimately lead to a massive investment of public money to bale out the failure of the Government's share deal.
I conclude as I began, by saying that that failure gave me and my hon. Friends no pleasure at all. The way in which the Government have responded, and the open-ended commitment that they have entered into, may mean that they will have to come back to the House on many occasions, and it could cost the public, savers and investors very dear indeed. I hope that the Minister can answer some of the points that I have raised, but I realise that many of them he cannot, because he cannot see into the future any more surely than I can.

Mr. Norman Lamont: I am sorry that the hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) feels that the share sale should have been suspended and I am surprised that that is his view. Given the fees that had been paid to the underwriters, not just on this privatisation but on so many others, it would have been a grave mistake for us to suspend the sale. It would have called into question the whole purpose of underwriting if, when the markets were in difficulty, the underwriters had been let off the hook. We have been criticised time and again for the size of the fees paid to the underwriters and it is extraordinary that in this case we should be urged by the hon. Member for Gordon to let the underwriters off the hook.

Mr. Ian Bruce: Does my right hon. Friend recall that when Labour sold 50 per cent. of BP shares in 1977 there were headlines that stated
BP shares bungle costs millions"?
Labour sold 50 per cent. for £600 million and indemnified the underwriters against loss; for 35 per cent. of the shares we get £6 billion. Surely that is how we should deal with our investments in British Petroleum.

Mr. Lamont: My hon. Friend is absolutely right and makes an extremely good point.
The hon. Member for Gordon asked whether it was true that the Bank of England might have to buy back all the shares that have been offered. In theory, that is the position and in theory I suppose that we could end up owning what we owned of the company before, plus a bit more from the rights issue, but at a much lower cost. That is why it was described as one of the greatest short sales in history. However, we do not expect that to happen.
The hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East (Mr. Brown) asked about the Bank of England's involvement and whether it might be discreetly buying BP shares to keep them above the 70p limit. Under no circumstances will the Bank buy BP shares other than under the arrangement announced to the House by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

Mr. Allen: My hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East (Mr. Brown) raised the point about the bouncing cheques—

Mr. Lamont: I am coming to that.

Mr. Allen: When the Minister comes to the bouncing cheques, can he tell us what will happen to those who have bounced those cheques? Does he have more sympathy for those who bounced cheques or for the poor unfortunates who did not bounce them?

Mr. Lamont: I am doing my best to answer the specific points raised by the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East and I will come to them one by one. He suggested that there was evidence of a decline in the past few weeks in the number of people owning shares. I believe that the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown) has written a letter to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor—

Mr. Gordon Brown: He has not replied.

Mr. Lamont: I am not sure whether the letter has arrived. We cannot pick up a newspaper without reading about the hon. Gentleman's letters. Some of them arrive and some do not. I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman is joining the Liberal party, because letter writing is normally a tactic employed by Liberal Members. However, I think that the particular letter alluded to by the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East may have arrived. I can tell him that we have no evidence, on the basis of the surveys that we have carried out or the figures that we have announced to the House, that there has been a decline in the number of people owning shares. The hon. Gentleman was quoting from a different survey based on different assumptions. However, even the hon. Gentleman's figures in the letter show a considerable increase in share ownership in this country. We profoundly welcome that and intend to pursue that aim.
The hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East referred to bed and breakfasting. Of course I cannot comment on the affairs of individual taxpayers. Bed and breakfasting is perfectly legal provided that it complies with certain criteria. Where it appears that it has not been done on arm's-length terms or at open market value, the Inland Revenue may make inquiries. We have all noted the recent press reports, which I am sure are what inspired the hon. Member's comments.

Mr. Nicholas Brown: My comments were inspired by concern for the Inland Revenue. There were clear opportunities for abuse. I am seeking from the Minister a clear commitment that the Government will encourage the Inland Revenue to look for and clamp down on abuse, particularly in the context of the BP sale.

Mr. Lamont: I do not think that the BP sale has given rise to anything that is not already perfectly legal. Even without the Bank of England scheme, there were large losses and opportunities for bed and breakfasting. Bed and breakfasting must fulfil certain criteria, and I am sure that the Inland Revenue will note what the hon. Gentleman said and the recent press reports.
The hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Gordon mentioned an alleged 4·9 per cent. purchase by the Kuwaitis' investment office. I have no information about that; it is a matter for BP. There is no limit in BP's articles


of association on individual or foreign holdings. It was with BP's agreement that the Government did not retain any share in the company.
The hon. Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen) asked about stopped cheques. When investors signed their application forms they agreed not to revoke their applications, so they should not have stopped their cheques. Those who did so have been asked to pay, but if they do not we shall consider what action to take.
The hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East raised a point that was made by the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith) about the BP rights issue and the 330p price. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor understood that the right hon. and learned Gentleman was asking whether the Government had to buy at the price of 330p from BP, whether the sale was pulled or not. My right hon. Friend said that that was not the case. If the hon. Gentleman studies Hansard he will see that that was what his right hon. and learned Friend's words appeared to mean. If he is saying that the question concerned the price of 330p rather than whether the Government were obliged to pay, I should tell him that 330p was the price for the rights issue and also the Government's sale price. I do not think that there could be any implied criticism, even if the question were answered on the basis of what the hon. Gentleman says that it meant, in buying the shares at 330p from BP because, like the other shares, they had been underwritten at that price. If the hon. Gentleman is saying that the shares were worth something else the implication is that BP should not receive the money that it wanted to raise through the rights issue. I am sure that, on reflection, the hon. Gentleman would not seek to imply that BP should not receive the agreed price that had been underwritten. I hope that I have clarified the matter and explained what my right hon. Friend meant when he answered the question.

Mr. Nicholas Brown: I understand the right hon. Gentleman's point perfectly. I am sure that he is right about the 330p, but I am not so sure that he is right about what the Chancellor meant. The Chancellor said :
The right hon. and learned Gentleman"—
my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith)—
then asked me whether it was true that the Government were obliged to purchase a large number of BP shares at 330p per share. I can tell him, of course, that it is not true." — [Official Report, Tuesday 27 October 1987; Vol. 121 c. 171.]
I agree that that bears the possible interpretation that there was no obligation to buy if the sale did not go ahead. Of course I accept that. However, it also bears the interpretation that there was no possible commitment to buy at 330p a share. While I accept that the way in which the question was phrased on the Tuesday was ambiguous, the way in which it was phrased the following Thursday during Treasury questions was not ambiguous. Still the Chancellor brushed it aside. He had had two days to read the debate and to consider the Government's position. He must have known that the question would be put again and it would have reflected more credit on him had he said that the Government were not obliged to buy if the sale did not proceed but to set out — as the right hon. Gentleman has correctly set out—the position if the sale did go ahead.
That is important because the thrust of my right hon. and learned Friend's argument was that the Government

were purchasing shares at a price higher than that at which they intended to sell shares. That argument should have been met on its own terms rather than having a different interpretation placed upon it.

Mr. Lamont: I am not sure that the point is worth pursuing but I assure the hon. Gentleman that the Chancellor interpreted the question in the way that I described. I assure him, too, that my right hon. Friend was aware of the price at which the shares were being sold; it would be pretty astonishing if he were not.

Question,
That a supplementary sum, not exceeding £1,000, be granted to Her Majesty out of the Consolidated Fund to defray the charges which will come in course of payment during the year ending on 31st March 1988 for expenditure by the Treasury in connection with the purchase and sale of shares in BP plc.

put and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in upon the foregoing resolution by the Chairman of Ways and Means, Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. John Major, Mr. Peter Brooke, Mr. Norman Lamont and Mr. Peter Lilley.

CONSOLIDATED FUND BILL

Mr. Norman Lamont accordingly presented a Bill to apply a sum out of the Consolidated Fund to the service of the year ending on 31 March 1988; And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow and to be printed. [Bill 44.]

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Ordered,
That, notwithstanding the provisions of paragraph 9 of Standing Order No. 13 (Arrangement of Public Business) and the Order of the House of 30th June relating to business of the House, the ballot for Private Members' Notices of Motions which are to have precedence on Friday 27th November shall be held after Questions on Tuesday 17th November.
That, at the sitting on Monday 16th November, notwithstanding the provisions of paragraph (1) (b) of Standing Order No. 14 (Exempted business), Mr. Speaker shall put the Questions on the Motions in the names of Mr. Secretary Walker and Mr. Secretary Rifkind relating to Public Health not later than one and a half hours after the first of them has been entered upon. — [Mr. Kenneth Carlisle.]

STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS &c.

EDUCATION

Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(5) (Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.)
That the draft Education Support Grants (Amendment) Regulations 1987, which were laid before this House on 16th July, be approved.—[Mr. Kenneth Carlisle.]

Question agreed to.

BUILDING SOCIETIES

Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(5) (Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.)
That the draft Building Societies (Provision of Services) (No. 3) Order 1987, which was laid before this House on 21st October, be approved.—[Mr. Kenneth Carlisle.]

Question agreed to.

PETITION

Rating Reform

Mr. Gordon Brown: With your permission, Madam Deputy Speaker, I wish to present a petition on behalf of Dunfermline district council in the name of the provost, Councillor Mill. The petition protests against the proposed implementation of the community charge, or as it is properly known, the poll tax, which is considered unfair, unjust and inequitable in my constituency. It will make 30,000 of my electors worse off, is a clear intrusion on the civil liberties of those electors and has no supporters in Scotland outside the Conservative party. The petition states:
Wherefore your petitioners pray that your Honourable House shall take immediate steps to repeal the legislation which introduces the poll tax-community charge and remove the burden of unfair taxation which the people of Scotland firmly rejected in the June 1987 election and replace this proposed regressive tax system with a method for raising local revenues to meet the justified needs of local expenditure more in keeping with justice and with equity.
It gives me pleasure on their behalf to bring the petition to the House and ask that the Government take seriously what is said within it.

To lie upon the Table.

Disabled People (Transport)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Kenneth Carlisle.]

Mr. Robert G. Hughes: I wish to discuss the transport needs of the disabled in Greater London. I should like to say how grateful I am to Mr. Speaker. I know that Mr. Speaker chooses the subject for the Thursday night Adjournment debate, so I am extremely grateful to him. I pay tribute to his interest in the subject. I know of his close involvement, as a constituency Member of Parliament, with Dial-a-Ride in Croydon. I believe that what I have to say will earn support from both sides of the House. Many colleagues representing other constituencies in Greater London have said how much they welcome the debate. In particular, my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway) has asked to be associated with what I have to say.
Much has happened in recent years, but that does not mean that we cannot discuss what has to happen with the various schemes and the availability of transport for the disabled. Now is the time to assess what is available for the disabled and what growth in services is feasible and desirable for them.
Why do we need to consider the matter at all? Anybody who has tried to go on a journey, or has been on a journey with a disabled person, particularly a person in a wheelchair, will recognise that preparing for any journey —journeys which most hon. Members would take for granted—is like planning a military exercise. One has to know everything about every aspect of the journey to be undertaken. Taking two trains or two buses is not on the cards for many of our fellow Londoners. Many of those people are still trapped in their houses. If one speaks to the people who have been able to take advantage of Dial-a-Ride, taxi-card or the mobility buses, they will say that they have experienced a sense of freedom that has been absent for them for many years, and for some of them for all their lives. Some of the people who wanted to attend this debate from my constituency and across London cannot do so, not because they could not get in to hear the debate, but because they simply could not guarantee that they would be able to get home afterwards. That is something that any other Londoner would take for granted.
Dial-a-Ride has been with us for only a short time, but it has made a huge impact across London. It was started initially by the Greater London council and is now financed by the Government. I and other Conservative Members have never been slow to point out the dreadful atrocities carried out by the GLC, particularly its rate increases, but it is because of the GLC, especially the then chairman of its transport committee, Mr. Dave Wetzel, that the scheme got off the ground in the first place. We should never be too ungenerous to give credit where it is due.
It is the volunteers who substantially run and organise Dial-a-Ride who deserve the credit, and I hope that the House will pay tribute to them for their work. It is almost entirely because of their efforts that the previously housebound have seen their horizons extended and their


lives transformed. Because of that, Dial-a-Ride has become the victim of its own success. It simply cannot keep up with the demand.
Dial-a-Ride has 50,000 members, yet London has about 250,000 disabled. No one can say exactly how many disabled there are. One survey last year even put the number as high as 500,000, and 30,000 Londoners are permanently in a wheelchair. Yet of those, only 38 per cent. of the transport handicapped have even heard of Dial-a-Ride, and only 2 per cent. have used it, according to a 1986 survey. In short, its facilities have been swamped.
The telephone booking system, under which each Dial-a-Ride has only one telephone and tries to take all the bookings for its vehicles, has put people off. In particular —if I may allude to one group that feels itself frozen out of Dial-a-Ride—the elderly frail, having tried and tried to telephone Dial-a-Ride, simply give up in the end and become housebound once again.
Two questions arise. How much money does Dial-a-Ride need to improve its service, and what is the demand? Nobody can answer those questions specifically. One must consider the demand on a regular basis. If we gave Dial-a-Ride in London extra money to buy, say, one vehicle per Dial-a-Ride and to improve the telephone system, how much difference would that make?
The taxi card was also initially the responsibility of the GLC, and it now comes under the local authority. It has come in for a lot of criticism because it is expensive, but I want to make it abundantly clear that it is good value for money. Its maximum subsidy of £6 is only half that of the average subsidy for Dial-a-Ride, yet a 1986 survey showed that only 6 per cent. of London's disabled had a taxi card. In my borough, and I think in most London boroughs, there is a waiting list of the disabled who want the taxi card service.
Why does taxi card have its opponents? It is simply because it is an open-ended financial commitment for the boroughs and it is subject to abuse. Yet, as I have said, it is vital to those who use it. Most people use it sparingly, and less than half use it more than once a month. I urge every London borough council to have patience with taxi card, to recognise what it is doing for the people who live in their boroughs and to recognise that they must continue to make a financial commitment to it.
Some taxi drivers feel that taxi card holders are sometimes more able bodied than they expected when they pick them up. One hears stories of a taxi turning up at a house and a theoretically disabled person bounding out of the house and jumping into the taxi. Whether such stories are far-fetched or true is not for me to say, but those who feed on such stories must recognise that, for instance, multiple sclerosis sufferers have good and bad days. One day a sufferer may be in a wheelchair and the next day be walking fairly satisfactorily. We cannot deny assistance to those people simply because they are better on some days than on others.
Thirdly, I want to talk about the impact of public transport. London Regional Transport in particular, and British Rail, have worked hard recently to improve access to their services, to promote new services and to publicise what is available. Improving access is extremely important, and only today my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State has launched — if that is the right word—the new airbus service that takes five wheelchairs between Victoria station and the airport. The service from

Euston to the airport will be available from about next January and will be of tremendous help to many wheelchair-bound people who want to go on holiday.
There are 260 new double-deckers with a lower and easier entrance and exit steps, and existing buses are being altered. There are also better handrails on buses and at underground stations. Visual signs accompany the bell to help the deaf. There are talking bus stops—that sounds like something out of a child's book — but they are extremely important to those who cannot read what is printed at the bus stop. Induction loops at station booking halls help the hard of hearing. Audible door buzzers have been installed on new central line trains. Most interestingly, the docklands light railway has wheelchair access from station to platform at every station.
Why, then, does only one underground station have the same facility? It is essential for London Regional Transport to consider the shallow run lines especially and have a core system of stations so that disabled people know that they can get to the trains at some of the stations, and that they can get off at a selected number of stations. I recognise that the deep lines would be more difficult, and that some of them would be dangerous, but more could he done on the shallow lines than has been done up to now. We must see some progress.
So far as new services are concerned, the mobility buses have made a big impact by taking people from outlying areas to the shopping areas. Equipped with lifts, they now operate in eight boroughs. I should like to see those services running in all boroughs, including in my borough, where people would perhaps like to go to the new shopping centre on a particular day of the week.
Dial-a-ride could work with the new mobility buses. It can and would like to be able to feed the mobility buses. For example, if one knew that on a Thursday, a bus would run from one's estate at 10 o'clock in the morning to the shopping centre and return in the afternoon, Dial-a-Ride could pick up people and take them to that mobility bus and collect them in the evening. Such a service would transform the lives of many people who are now trapped in their own homes. It could be cost-effective and improve the cost-effectiveness of the Dial-a-Ride service.

Sir George Young: Is my hon. Friend aware of the considerable interest in the debate that he has initiated, not least in the London borough of Ealing, and that Ealing Dial-a-Ride is anxious to try to meet more of the demand that it is facing. Towards the end of his speech, will my hon. Friend make some suggestions about how the voluntary organisations might be able to meet more of the demand if they had more resources?

Mr. Hughes: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising that point. He is my Member of Parliament. I voted for him, and he is a very good Member. His interest in and concern with such matters is well recognised in the area where I live. I hope to deal with the point that he made, and if I do not I am sure that my hon. Friend the Minister will deal with it in his speech.
There is plenty of scope for new services and an imaginative approach by London Regional Transport, and the voluntary sector could come up with new ideas that would be cost-effective. The advice that London Regional Transport gives to its drivers recognises that there is a big market to be tapped. Its "Information for Drivers" leaflet states:


Elderly and disabled people … bring revenue to London buses …
Lots of these passengers are regulars; they travel every day, and really are grateful to staff who help them.
It is important to recognise that the fact that people are disabled does not mean that they are not customers. They must be dealt with as customers. They are also ratepayers and taxpayers and deserve their share of what is happening in transport.
The other area in which the public transport services have helped is information. There is no point in putting on a service if a customer does not know whether he will be able to use it. There is now a proliferation of information leaflets and large print maps have been produced by London Regional Transport and British Rail. The disabled passenger unit at London Regional Transport encourages input by the customers on what is planned.
I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, Acton about the voluntary organisations. The big thing about Dial-a-Ride is that it is customer orientated and is run by customers. They have had a huge input into what has been achieved. We must not lose that input in any of the changes that may be sought.
We are seeking a co-ordinated future. Demand will grow and the supply of money must grow with it. We must recognise that, at present, we can see only the tip of the iceberg. As more people are able to use the services, the demand will grow and people will want to use them on a regular basis. In the long term, I hope that the Government and the Department of Transport will accept that we need to increase, in a staged manner, the amount of funding given to the organisations involved and the amount of money put into the services. In that way we will be able to see a real return, not just in terms of value for money, but in the effects on the lives of Londoners.
London Regional Transport and the Department of Transport must co-ordinate all the services, and LRT is in a good position to do that. One service affects the others, and LRT and the Department must take that into account when considering the pressure to bring in different services.
The telephone system for Dial-a-Ride is inadequate. Currently there are 1,724 members per telephone, and what we need is a sub-regional exchange system so that members can ring more easily and get their call answered. We must price the improvements schemes and ensure that staged growth takes place. When considering the different Dial-a-Ride schemes, we must not be too limited in setting the ground rules. Traffic speed and density influence the cost of each service, and we must not be too rigid.
We must set a date by which new taxis are able to take wheelchairs, and we must urge taxi and mini-cab operators to grasp the commercial opportunities that are available, by buying suitable vehicles. We must ask voluntary organisations—as the Harrow Association for Voluntary Services is doing — to raise money to convert taxis so that we can increase the number of taxis available locally.
I do not ask my hon. Friend for answers to all these matters tonight, but I hope that he will consider them in the long term. No one must assume that what has been achieved is enough. No one must assume that he can assess what the real need is or will be. I hope that my hon. Friend will show his customary open-mindness to future developments and recognise that we have only scratched

the surface of the problems. If the Government recognise that and act upon my recommendations, they will transform the lives of Londoners in a tremendous way.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. Peter Bottomley): First, may I congratulate you, Madam Deputy Speaker, on being here for this important debate. We are aware that in your service to your constituents you would echo many of the things that have been said by my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Hughes).
I recognise the support that my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, West has had from colleagues on the Conservative Benches. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Lincoln (Mr. Carlisle) is interested in the subject even though he represents an out-of-London constituency. My hon. Friend the Member for Gravesham (Mr. Arnold) has been here throughout the debate and my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea (Mr. Bowis), although he is not contributing to the debate, has a keen interest in the matter. My hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, Acton (Sir G. Young) has contributed. I also acknowledge the help that has been given by my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, North (Mr. Thompson), who has a keen concern about all transport issues also and who has the interests of the disabled at heart. I would list the hon. Members on the other side of the House if they were present.
My hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, West has done a great job in continuing his services to Londoners, formerly as a member of the Greater London council, and now in this House. He has raised a subject that is seriously considered and supported by most hon. Members who have either the eyes to see or the personal experience to know what it is like to be immobile because of some physical or mental attribute. Such mobility handicap does not apply only to those who are conventionally recognised as disabled. It can be argued that 10 per cent. of us suffer from a mobility handicap at some stage in our lives. It may be because they have children, or have a physical disability —permanent or temporary—or it may be due to fraility or age. There are many reasons why many of us pass through a stage of difficulty with moving around. So, making sensible and greater provision for that is important.
I propose to start by discussing Dial-a-Ride, and then cover other issues if there is time. Perhaps we can cover more of the subject during another debate in the future, because it deserves more than the half hour that it is now receiving through the good offices of my hon. Friend. The Department of Transport has been well served by Sir Peter Baldwin's committee, which now has a statutory responsibility to advise the Secretary of State. My hon. Friend paid tribute to the work of London Regional Transport's unit for disability, and I am sure he will not mind my adding the disability unit of the Department of Transport itself, which could be described as the sometimes unseen link between all of us with an interest in the subject.
I also pay tribute to the work of the people who established Dial-a-Ride, and to London Regional Transport, which, through its specialised unit, is promoting the effective development of Dial-a-Ride services throughout London. I do not want to spend too much time tonight on the one-trip-a-week campaign.


Those who read the London Regional Transport report —issued last month—will see that there are almost 10 times as many journeys as there are people registered for the scheme. I do not rest any case on that, as, obviously, more people could be registered, and we could probably discover, as the LRT report on taxi card shows, that if one culls through the list of those who are registered, one may also discover a fair number who have dropped off. We should not play the numbers game if we are trying to meet and increase the demand, because information is important to meeting people's needs in a cost-effective way. No one would wish to pretend that the level of Dial-a-Ride services that is currently available is sufficient to meet all the transport needs of the people who depend on them, let alone the growing number who are likely to become members.
It is worth noting that, besides asking for more money, we must go for improved efficiency. If I had been able to announce an increase in Dial-a-Ride funding of 10 per cent. a year ago, with a further 10 per cent. this year, most people who support or use Dial-a-Ride, would have said that that was welcome. The Government did better than that ; they provided a 20 per cent. increase a year ago, and that accelerated funding has made it possible to obtain extra vehicles and put money towards the capital investment in the communications system to which my hon. Friend referred. The LRT report shows that there are six Dial-a-Rides whose cost per trip is less than £10, and three whose cost per trip is more than £15. That scatter is not fully explained by the different geographical location or history of the organisations. There are substantial efficiency gains to come, and I hope that all those who work for Dial-a-Ride, in the management committees and for LRT, will work together for continued efficiency improvements. That is the best way of getting the best value for money now and of justifying future increases. We want to approach Dial-a-Ride development in an incremental way, so that at each stage we can ensure that the best possible service has been provided for the greatest number of people.
Let us examine the future development of the other services that are available in London. London has the best overall provision for people with mobility handicaps of any capital city in the world, not only because of the LRT introduction of the airbus service, which has been adapted so that people in wheelchairs and frail people can now travel from Victoria to Heathrow on the ordinary buses —although that is important. However, I shall use that example to demonstrate how value for money can play an important part. Alder Valley sensibly introduced a Careline service so that people in wheelchairs could go from London railway stations to Heathrow. It found that it was not possible to continue the service, which was costing £7,000 a week. There were calls for that service to be funded directly by central Government. I pay tribute to people in British Airways, in the British Airports Authority and in British Rail and to the many groups of people, including the Baldwin committee, who came together on the problem.
It was discovered that London Regional Transport could adapt the ordinary airbus fleet to enable people in wheelchairs to travel in integrated transport. That bus conversion takes eight seconds and in that time the lift can be opened and the stair lowered. I pay tribute to LRT for

Mr. David Lightbown.its training and for the positive way that its drivers are carrying on the work pioneered by Alder Valley. That kind of service helps.
The work that the Department of Transport has done towards adapting the conventional London taxi means that not only is a reasonably low-cost conversion available for the FX4, but that the Metro-Cammell taxi is now available. This means that the converted FX4 and the Metro-Cammell can now take wheelchairs. It is not just a matter of trying to concentrate all the demand on Dial-a-Ride. We must also try to make the ordinary services more easily available to those in wheelchairs.
My hon. Friend spoke about the adaptations to the London buses. New London buses have many simple changes — differences that may not he noticed by everyone comparing the new buses with those made 10 years ago. On the new buses there is a lower step and the grab rails are in the right place and in distinctive colours. There are some other changes, but I do not have time to go into them in detail. These things show that those who hold the stewardship of transport for Londoners are trying as far as possible to make it available to all Londoners rather than just to those who are fit and able.
My hon. Friend spoke about the difficulties of converting the London underground, or at least the trains on the deep-line services. He recognised, for example, that the docklands light railway has such adaptations. They are built in. It is always better to build things in than bolt them on, but where things are not built in, perhaps we can bolt them on.
More changes are coming and we must praise those who have brought them about, as well as look for better ways of moving forward. The fundamental change is the recognition in London, throughout the rest of the United Kingdom and, indeed, throughout Europe, that people with disabilities are a legitimate part of the travelling public. That applies not just to them as passengers but to them as customers. More taxi drivers are seeing the benefits of the taxi card service.
It is also worth recognising, as the number of taxis to take wheelchairs increases, that the average cost of a taxi card ride is less than £6 and the average cost of the Dial-a-Ride service is, I think, getting on for £12. Perhaps we can move some of the demand presently met by Dial-a-Ride to a cheaper and more effective service that can overcome the limitations of 1,000 people trying to ring the same telephone number—even if more telephones are installed. We must try to get the pattern dictated by the customer rather than have the service dictated by the form of provision often set up by disparate groups. The present levels of provision are a tribute to the people who have been working in this area for longer than I have.
I have said that when we talk about disabled people we are not talking about a small minority or exclusively about people confined to wheelchairs. Anyone who has used a bus or the London underground while carrying luggage or heavy shopping or with small children with prams or pushchairs, knows what it means to be mobility handicapped. Transport providers have now recognised that getting it right for people with disabilities means that they are getting it right for a larger group of people with mobility handicaps.
Some people need more specialised provision and, of course, Dial-a-Ride is important in that respect. I suspect that we shall meet a growing demand every time that we make more forms of transport available to people with a


mobility or a disability handicap. We will find that Dial-a-Ride's places will be more than taken up by people who have not yet had the information or the confidence or are not yet within reach of Dial-a-Ride.
Having put Dial-a-Ride into the broader context, I now look forward not only to growing use of previous innovations but to further innovations. There may be many things that we do not yet know how to achieve, but the opportunity will come and, if we take it, we will find that we have done our job better and that more people will have opportunities to move around.
I again thank my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, West. I can tell the House that we intend to circulate information on self-propulsion to millions of people. MAVIS is not one of my girl friends but our advice centre at Crowthorne, Berkshire, for people who want to be able

to drive. Many disabled people who have the ability to drive have not yet found a centre. MAVIS is not the only centre that can provide assessment, because there is a centre in Banstead and centres in other places. However, MAVIS is probably the best-known one.
People can come to those centres for assessment to see whether they will be able to drive themselves. Using either their own money or mobility allowance, they can go for self-propulsion. That option is not open to everyone, but it is possible for more people.
I hope that we shall be able to return to this subject and have more time to cover it in more detail so that we can carry out our responsibilities better and spread knowledge of what is already available. I am glad that London is doing better.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty-five minutes past Eleven o'clock.